From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Chris Mason To: James Bottomley Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:30:21 +0000 Message-ID: <35402D8E-0294-4E34-BE8B-22BCBC20BF66@fb.com> References: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> In-Reply-To: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Tech Board Discuss , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] TAB non-nomination List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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=20 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=20 conduct changes. There are a wide range of deeply held beliefs in this=20 area, and every choice would have eventually led to major disagreements.=20 But what we do know is that everyone sat down and did their best to=20 find compromise. That doesn't mean we found the right compromise for=20 every developer, but I still really appreciate how much time and energy=20 everyone spent explaining their point of view and looking for common=20 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=20 kernel. Anger about the code of conduct isn't a great qualifier, but=20 I'll happily encourage anyone who cares deeply about the kernel=20 community, even if they disagree with my opinions about how to best=20 support it. -chris