From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDEE6149B for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 09:57:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C3CF712 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 09:57:04 +0000 (UTC) From: Laurent Pinchart To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:57:18 +0300 Message-ID: <2795844.PlkHHhbf7z@avalon> In-Reply-To: <87efd4px5a.fsf@intel.com> References: <20181005075048.GA24138@localhost> <87efd4px5a.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] New CoC and Brendan Eich List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Jani, On Friday, 5 October 2018 12:20:49 EEST Jani Nikula wrote: > On Fri, 05 Oct 2018, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 09:12:40AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> BTW, should we start sending out patches to remedy parts in the CoC that > >> are not appropriate/suited/wanted for the Linux kernel project? > >> So far I have seen many suggestions to improve it, but no formal patches > >> for Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst. > >> I'm afraid it is already causing a chilling effect... > > > > There have also been very few patches to the top-level COPYING, modulo > > some recent SPDX-inspired reordering. The right place for patches is > > upstream; the right place for clarifications on application would be in > > a separate Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-process.rst or similar. > > Agreed, as noted before. I'm afraid I disagree in this particular instance. We first need to evaluate a) whether we have picked the right upstream, and b) whether the upstream we base our code of conduct on has the same goals as yours. There are valid reasons for software to fork, I don't see why there could be valid reasons for codes of conduct to fork. Note that I'm not advocating forking or not forking, I'm saying that the discussion shouldn't be avoided. Several concerns have been raised that the wording of the code of conduct, not its essence, doesn't apply very well to the community due to technical differences in the management of the project, these need to be addressed. Other concerns have been raised that touch to the essence of the code of conduct, and I believe these need to be discussed. Only when the necessary discussions will have taken place, and a decision on how to address the concerns taken, should we then decide whether to fork or contribute upstream. > Also, given the way the new CoC was introduced, I think the discussion > on modifying code-of-conduct.rst locally is mostly futile until we hear > some direction straight from the horse's mouth. I agree that we are lacking an official story. However, I share concerns about how the new code of conduct has been imposed (by who ?) without consulting the community, and I think we need a better process to decide *together* what we want to do *together*. In that regard discussing how we want to address community management in general is a public issue that needs to be discussed among us. I still believe that democracy is better than dictatorship, including when it comes to deciding codes of conduct. > However, nothing prevents anyone from proposing improvements directly to > Contributor Covenant upstream. Again I believe this should be discussed inside our community first, and then possibly proposed upstream when we reach an agreement on what we want to do. Otherwise you'll have completely random, often half-though, proposals submitted upstream and nothing will happen. Let's not use this as an argument to muzzle all voices from our community members. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart