From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 1280D37144 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 22:07:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=/3AakIpvpkU9IBxzQQv+Xfc8huZ6mM2m+caflVfL2DA=; b=LK9WJLDiRfd0y/BPRckK7uWPGr 5V8KBQTq7lYgKgTQCP98RDI5jpgPcd0WGUCxLFLJMXJ++2f+3SZoSGZdVF/96yt/ZMiAHE2Lr3aoh 3h1PZ4S2Qu0KA6DWH6cIWmwxik6e2s+WVqARG37TeorS3YGLY1Z7GOQbYT/iJjLZbGm6IiKmObeTD SjMhXK6djGrazJ6MmsZaUf/zNR7boxVT58m+EvNIuBrfj7rS/S4eB3W04skTtWFQdpPzH6i2/BWdE /ADsJIqEI4PQeqPJC1i3J9V9/IwXRnknAdjGdq8arRkekFBgC9cQ0iLML2KUJuX9X9DvmADXTDarg SB9wx/IQ==; Received: from [2601:1c2:980:9ec0::9fed] by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qiisR-001Ldl-2K; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 22:07:27 +0000 Message-ID: <40750d00-723d-4d6b-a936-dbe8e22889e7@infradead.org> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:07:27 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Maintainers Support Group Content-Language: en-US To: Theodore Ts'o , Shuah Cc: tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, ksummit@lists.linux.dev References: <20230919121001.7bc610d4@gandalf.local.home> <371cb5d1-9997-a03b-4848-550ac8658021@kernel.org> From: Randy Dunlap In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/19/23 15:01, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 04:39:11PM -0400, 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. > > I just realized that this statement was a bit ambiguous; in the first > CoC, I meant the "Code of Conduct Committee". In the second CoC in > this sentence, I made the "Code of Conduct". > > From the context of what you wrote, I *think* you were consistently > referring to the Code of Conduct Committee, but when I see CoC I tend > think the actual "Code of Conduct" and not the committee which > enforces the CoC. > > Apologies for any confusion, Thanks for explaining. I was confused by Shuah's comments (but I came to the same conclusion that you did). -- ~Randy