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 A59701C7D for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:10:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout.easymail.ca (mailout.easymail.ca [64.68.200.34]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E60C78B for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:10:39 +0000 (UTC) To: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , clm@fb.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, Jonathan Corbet , olof@lxom.net, rostedt@goodmis.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Shuah Khan References: <1538670475.4003.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: Shuah Khan Message-ID: <82d32d94-1312-7d0d-6453-1749f5cec954@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:10:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1538670475.4003.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 10/04/2018 10:27 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 08:24 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: >> I have been trying to follow various threads on this topic and none >> of them address the review of this patch that went in. There is no >> mistake in the title of this topic. I do consider this topic to be >> more general than limited to Maintainer Summit. Hence, the choice of >> a wider Technical designation. >> >> So I am kicking off a thread to do the review with my comments. I am >> in general agreement with the spirit of this change to the existing >> "Code of Conflict". > > Just as an FYI, the Zephyr project recently included the contributor > covenant CoC minus the enforcement clause. They did a standard github > PR for this: > > https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/10356 > > They note that they may add more enforcement details when the community > agrees on them. > Thanks for the link. It is almost identical to the Code of Conduct that went into Linux 4.19-rc4 minus the enforcement section. It would make sense to remove the enforcement section and discuss and add enforcement after the usual patch review process we already have in place. I personally would prefer amending the CoC in Linux 4.19 removing the enforcement details over waiting to discuss at the Maintainer and/or Kernel summit and releasing Linux 4.19 with the CoC v1 as it reads now. thanks, -- Shuah