Re: [Ksummit-discuss] TAB non-nomination

[Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>]

On 8 Nov 2018, at 16:04, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> Hind sight, though is always perfect.  At the time, as a TAB member,
> all you saw was a panic driven by both Linus and the Linux Foundation
> that we needed an updated Kernel CoC ASAP, like today.

I think panic is the wrong word to attach to Linus' response, especially 
around the code of conduct.

>
> The second mistake was picking the wrong CoC. [ ... ]
>
> The third mistake was dumping the fully formed CoC and a later update
> into the tree with little to no community input

The update was entirely based on community input.

> which has generated a
> lot of obvious anger within our community itself.

It's absolutely true that some members of the community were upset.

We'll never know if there could have been a better time to make code of 
conduct changes.  There are a wide range of deeply held beliefs in this 
area, and every choice would have eventually led to major disagreements. 
  But what we do know is that everyone sat down and did their best to 
find compromise.  That doesn't mean we found the right compromise for 
every developer, but I still really appreciate how much time and energy 
everyone spent explaining their point of view and looking for common 
ground.

> All I'll say on this
> is that revisiting the CoC is going to cause another huge cascade of
> externally driven attacks which I think we'd all rather avoid, so if
> you're still ticked, then perhaps you should channel that anger and
> stand for the TAB ...
>

It's really important the TAB is full of people that care about the 
kernel.  Anger about the code of conduct isn't a great qualifier, but 
I'll happily encourage anyone who cares deeply about the kernel 
community, even if they disagree with my opinions about how to best 
support it.

-chris