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 4BD12B2B for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 07:12:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vs1-f68.google.com (mail-vs1-f68.google.com [209.85.217.68]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6419196 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 07:12:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f68.google.com with SMTP id z130-v6so6899433vsc.7 for ; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 00:12:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6108593.JtmfA2IdsK@avalon> <20181004203956.GR32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20181004145631.5d1c3fb2@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20181004145631.5d1c3fb2@lwn.net> From: Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 09:12:40 +0200 Message-ID: To: Jonathan Corbet Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] New CoC and Brendan Eich List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:56 PM Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:39:57 +0100 > Al Viro wrote: > > * contributor Alice gets banned from contributing, for whatever reason > > * Alice finds a roothole and posts a technically valid fix > > * maintainer Bob sees the posting, verifies that the bug is real, that > > the fix is correct and that the source of that patch is banned. > > So, while remedies under the CoC are yet to be determined in any sort of > detail, I don't believe I have heard anybody talk about banning the > acceptance of patches from anybody. Speaking only for myself, I have a > hard time seeing that happening in the absence of other sorts of concerns "Maintainers have the right and responsibility [...] to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor". > (the event where a would-be contributor started sending under a sock > puppet name because nobody would consider his work anymore comes to mind). That has indeed already happened. > What *is* common under CoCs in various projects is banning from specific > fora, such as this mailing list. But that is a different thing and > doesn't bring about the scenario described above. "Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove [...] commits". Enjoy the append-only nature of non-rebasing git ;-) BTW, should we start sending out patches to remedy parts in the CoC that are not appropriate/suited/wanted for the Linux kernel project? So far I have seen many suggestions to improve it, but no formal patches for Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst. I'm afraid it is already causing a chilling effect... Or is that to be done after a group discussion in e.g. Edinburgh? Which may bring us _after_ the release of v4.19... Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds