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 B23A4B1E for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 23:23:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E1C934F for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 23:23:50 +0000 (UTC) From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: James Bottomley References: <1539202053.12644.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:23:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1539202053.12644.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (James Bottomley's message of "Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:07:33 -0700") Message-ID: <87efcxtmhf.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] code of conduct fixes List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , James Bottomley writes: > Resend to show accumulated tags and also to add a third patch listing > the TAB as the reporting point as a few people seem to want. If it > gets the same level of support, I'll send it in with the other two. There is also: > Our Responsibilities > ==================== > > Maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior > and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to > any instances of unacceptable behavior. > > Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject > comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are > not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any > contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, > offensive, or harmful. Which is very problematic. a) In append only logs like git we can not edit history. Making it a mainters responsibility to edit the history, to do the impossible is a problem. b) There are no responsibilities of for people who are not Maintainers. That is another problem. c) The entire tone of the reponsibilities section is out of line with a community where there are no enforcement powers only the power to accept or not accept a patch. Only the power to persuade not to enforce. Overall in the discussions I have heard people talking about persuading, educating, and not feeding trolls. Nowhere have I heard people talking about policing the community which I understand that responsiblity section to be talking about. Increasingly I am getting the feeling that this document does not the linux development community. Perhaps a revert and trying to come up with better language from scratch would be better. I don't know how to rephrase that reponsibility section but if we don't go with the revert something looks like it need sot be done there. Eric