From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Chris Mason To: Jason Cooper Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 19:26:55 +0000 Message-ID: <2C4B571B-A940-4B41-90C0-D1CE277EAAF0@fb.com> References: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <35402D8E-0294-4E34-BE8B-22BCBC20BF66@fb.com> <41b03a5b-1af4-0a87-2736-016f79d4d1ca@kernel.org> <20181109190305.GD21078@thunk.org> <20181109201700.GB9256@io.lakedaemon.net> In-Reply-To: <20181109201700.GB9256@io.lakedaemon.net> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Tech Board Discuss Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] better hot-topic discussion processes was: Re: TAB non-nomination List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 9 Nov 2018, at 12:17, Jason Cooper wrote: > +Kostantin > > Hi Ted, > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:03:05PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: >> So what was done with the update to the CoC was that a proposed set of >> changes was sent out to the top 200 or so contributors to the kernel, >> by git statistics over the past year, asking for their comments and >> their sign-offs. So there *was* community input, and that input did >> result in changes to the CoC update. >> >> Could there be a better process? I think we're all open to input. If >> someone would like to suggest a better way to handle things, that >> would be great. I will disclose upfront, though, that I will have to >> politely disagree with the proposition that completely free and open >> discussion is always the magic bullet solution. > > Ok, I'll take a stab at that. :) > > I'll make the assumption that there was nothing said in the "invited" > discussion that the speaker would object to being a matter of public > record. I'm snipping the rest because you lost me right here ;) -chris