Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC FOR KS] CoC and Linus position (perhaps undocumented/closed/limited/invite session)

[Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>]

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:02 PM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-09-18 at 15:55 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Allow me to open this large can of worms I find sitting in front of
>> me, I'm not sure where it came from and I certainly didn't own it
>> last week.
>>
>> I'm unlikely to be able to produce a trip to Edinburgh (even
>> Vancouver might be touch and go, travel budgets and family
>> commitments don't always line up).
>>
>> I think there might be place for a report from the people who did
>> sign off the CoC about the thoughts/process involved in updating it
>> (and/or urgency) to the rest of the Maintainer group.
>>
>> Now I understand that having a public talk about such a thing will
>> likely descend into farce, there may be scope for something of a
>> Chatham House Rule style meeting, or just a non-recorded, non-public
>> session like we've done for sensitive subjects are previous kernel
>> summits.
>>
>> It might just be a readout from a similar meeting at Edinburgh summit
>> (maybe someone else can propose that), or maybe some sort of Q&A
>> session. Maybe Linus could record a piece to camera for the
>> maintainers that can't make Edinburgh, but would still like to
>> understand where everything currently sits. Said piece would of
>> course be burned afterwards.
>
> I'll let the people who signed off on it address this.
>
>> After the past 2-3 days I get the feeling there are maintainers
>> unsure about how this affects them and I think assuaging those fears
>> might be a good thing.
>>
>> (Daniel and I have worked under the freedesktop CoC for graphics
>> projects for over a year now, so this actually doesn't affect me in
>> any way I haven't already considered over a year ago, when I
>> signed'off introducing a CoC to the drm subsystem).
>>
>> I'm also equally happy nailing the lid back on the can of worms and
>> never discussing it again.
>
> From my perspective, which is probably fairly widespread: we're already
> pretty much policing the lists using a set of rules which match fairly
> closely to the new CoC, so there should really be no huge impact.
>
> The can of worms is that you can endlessly debate CoCs.  I don't think
> this one is the best we could have chosen because it separates
> behaviour into "contributing to positive environment" and
> "unacceptable" but we have a lot of borderline problem behaviour that
> isn't mentioned at all: things like being excessively nit picking in
> reviews; being unable or unwilling to reach a compromise in a code
> related dispute.  However, I think I'd rather have a root canal than a
> debate on how to amend the new CoC, so I think it's good enough, lets
> just go with it.

I think the insistence that there's nothing to discuss here, for
years, is what brought us to this point. I don't think it's an
effective strategy going forward.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch