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 5895BD3A for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:41:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-f48.google.com (mail-it0-f48.google.com [209.85.214.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7422798 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:41:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f48.google.com with SMTP id j81-v6so3562164ite.0 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 07:41:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1537279328.3424.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1537279328.3424.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: Daniel Vetter Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:41:23 +0200 Message-ID: To: James Bottomley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC FOR KS] CoC and Linus position (perhaps undocumented/closed/limited/invite session) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:02 PM, James Bottomley 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