From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB6E81028 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 08:04:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com (mail-wm1-f68.google.com [209.85.128.68]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A21F27EF for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 08:04:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id y25-v6so1200521wmi.1 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 01:04:38 -0700 (PDT) To: Tim.Bird@sony.com, shuah@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, jani.nikula@intel.com References: <87tvmdvoaj.fsf@intel.com> <20180925073848.5f42a8ec@lwn.net> From: Laura Abbott Message-ID: <6b6933ba-284e-adec-6060-0bf51c4fc7e7@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 01:04:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: olof@lxom.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH-TOPIC] Review - Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 09/25/2018 09:51 AM, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Shuah Khan >> >> On 09/25/2018 07:38 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:56:04 +0300 >>> Jani Nikula wrote: >>> >>>> Is the implication that further discussion on this is futile? >>>> >>>> Fire-and-forget is not exactly the best approach for rolling out a code >>>> of conduct. >>> >>> I doubt anybody is going to forget! :) >> >> It is disappointing that it had to be committed without following the usual >> process. That said, I do support the direction and stating the expectations. >> >>> >>> This is only my opinion, but I don't believe that the current CoC is set >>> in stone and immune to further changes. It is something to start with. >>> I expect we will end up evolving it, like we evolve our other code. We >>> will need to figure out how to do that, though; that discussion has not >>> yet even begun. >>> >> >> One of the reasons for starting this thread is to get a clear understanding >> of the intent for next steps and the next steps for involving the community >> and evolving the CoC. I hope a concrete plan or some plan emerges out of >> this >> discussion. >> >> Since the way it currently reads, it adds to maintainer responsibilities, >> it is important to open it up for review by all maintainers as opposed to >> participants of just the Maintainer Summit which is a very small group. > > I am speaking only for myself, but I couldn't agree more, on all points. > > I think Mauro raised some very good points about aspects of the CoC > being a better fit for a github-style project as opposed to a widely > distributed e-mail based project. And certainly the ambiguity regarding the > treatment of published e-mails as private information needs to be > resolved. So I think it's unquestionable that the CoC will need to change. > Fedora is going through a similar process to revamp its code of conduct. It's not fully released yet but from talking to some people involved, they started from the contributor covenant and made some changes and amendments. Some of the amendments were to clarify the purpose of the code of conduct. Given Fedora also has a heavily e-mail based workflow, I think this is a good indication it should be possible to make modifications to meet our needs. Thanks, Laura