From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EF69BE4C for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 22:53:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64142C433C8; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 22:53:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1695164038; bh=kVC6K/SEf+n4/KyFhHiuq7/388ned3p1zTOS/+6ihQA=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=iOGxreb6loFzfsbTdG4804QGSgYTMd4sOslZn/VXh7OcfYGnvBZxZZPybRcvzvITy O//y1p1wqcM2G4IxyLnRYoh62C1BcpDlb/Ipqyk+GVXm2GE5xMJkHISECXklOLLnJe w/MhvAm45ghIJ9PJt6dzujAQypMxkYYVMkmIeIO7un8zP/sQPrkmi6sbqz3RHOqXqs 02KKlPtK9ukB/pBGYI+64APvecF/UvgrS4PAHBhssfccBnOT72e4OlGTYEVHQd9/HQ qArt/euW0UzvNyppT3NtBA4ksoB9MlFBP/Ij34TzsI7P+U3tcR981023oZX9FtK/1n 5DQMLQDGpXsnQ== Message-ID: <3180ba7a-668c-971b-3357-2dd5ec9367db@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 16:53:57 -0600 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1 Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Maintainers Support Group Content-Language: en-US To: Theodore Ts'o , Steven Rostedt , James Bottomley Cc: ksummit@lists.linux.dev, tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, shuah References: <20230919121001.7bc610d4@gandalf.local.home> <371cb5d1-9997-a03b-4848-550ac8658021@kernel.org> <19fc6e5b-3b20-7d4c-6e50-cc3bc5cea2da@kernel.org> From: Shuah In-Reply-To: <19fc6e5b-3b20-7d4c-6e50-cc3bc5cea2da@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 9/19/23 16:32, Shuah wrote: > On 9/19/23 14:39, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:52:40AM -0600, Shuah wrote: >>> As a member of the CoC, I respectfully disagree with the statement "but all the >>> focus has mainly been around telling maintainers how to behave." This impression >>> might have been the result of one unfortunate incident that took place last year. >>> is only part of what CoC has been doing. >>> >>> A majority of reports are related to incorrect understanding of how the community >>> works and discusses technical issues. Most of them get resolved without involving >>> the community. This is behind the scenes silent work CoC does. >>> >>> It is unfortunate that CoC is being viewed as a body that is focused on telling >>> maintainers how to behave. I would encourage to not view CoC work based on one >>> or two cases that were outliers. CoC worked very hard to resolve them fairly and >>> that benefited the community as a whole. >> >> Shuah, I don't think this is the fault of the CoC.  Much of it is in >> how people interpret the CoC, or think it should be adapted.  For >> example, just this past week, on the maintainer's summit, this >> statement: >> > I agree with this statement that people have differing opinions on > the CoC role. There are people that don't think CoC is doing enough > and other side thinks it is focused on telling maintainers how to behave. > Neither is accurate. > > People that think Coc isn't doing enough don't fully understand the > technical discussion dynamic and what constitutes a CoC violation, > and more importantly the role of a maintainer in making decisions > on accepting and rejecting patches. > > The other side that thinks CoC is focused on "telling maintainers how > to behave" doesn't have visibility into the majority of reports CoC > determines that they fall into the category of normal technical > discussion and takes care of them behind the scenes. > > >>> Waah, waah, waah. The buffer cache is *trivial*. If you don't like the >>> buffer cache, don't use it. It's that simple.[1] >> >> ... resulted in Linus being accused as a CoC violation. >> >> I'm not sure that it qualifies as a CoC violation, but Dave Chinner >> certainly thought so, and publically accused Linus of that[2]. >> > >> Personally, I'm not convinced that people calling people out for real >> or imagined CoC violations is always going to be productive, >> especially when it wasn't an explicit personal attack.  It's these >> sorts of edge cases is what causes some people to fear and badmouth >> CoC's.  Which is, I think, unfortunate. > > Yes. I agree that going CoC over disagreements isn't productive, neither > is looking the other way when real violation occur. > Sorry this didn't read right. I agree that calling out CoC violation over disagreements isn't productive. > The question we have to answer as a community is are we better off with CoC > in place or not. I would think we are better off. > Clarifying the confusion over adapting CoC and CoC committee, I mean adapting CoC here. I does appear we are going away from the main discussion of maintainer support and I do think the proposal James pointed to is where we could start and evolve that discussion to the actions such as support group, instead of starting with a solution without looking at the bigger picture. https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit/ab9cfd857e32635f626a906410ad95877a22f0db.camel@HansenPartnership.com/ thanks, -- Shuah