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 5EDC839C0 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:59:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BFDB712 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:59:32 +0000 (UTC) From: Jani Nikula To: Laurent Pinchart , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org In-Reply-To: <2795844.PlkHHhbf7z@avalon> References: <20181005075048.GA24138@localhost> <87efd4px5a.fsf@intel.com> <2795844.PlkHHhbf7z@avalon> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:59:23 +0300 Message-ID: <875zygpn10.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] New CoC and Brendan Eich List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 05 Oct 2018, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > There are valid reasons for software to fork, I don't see why there > could be valid reasons for codes of conduct to fork. Perhaps you're missing a "not" in there? Some of the valid reasons to *not* fork codes of conduct are similar to why you shouldn't roll your own licenses. First, people don't want to keep reading and interpreting different texts for different projects, wondering what this means for them. Just read the familiar label and you know what's in the box. Second, as a community you can share the experiences and best practices with other projects using the same text. I'm not saying we should stick to Contributor Covenant at all cost, I'm saying pick a suitable tried and tested code of conduct, and stick with it. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center