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 DC139E55 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vs1-f67.google.com (mail-vs1-f67.google.com [209.85.217.67]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65DFA7CF for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f67.google.com with SMTP id w8-v6so721676vsl.4 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 07:58:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180918094332.2c0d066a@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: From: Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:58:02 +0200 Message-ID: To: Daniel Vetter Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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 4:34 PM Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:55:23 +1000 > > Dave Airlie wrote: > What suprised me is how quickly this all happened. Back when we've > done the same CoC for freedesktop.org and all the graphics stuff > hosted there, there's been years of hallway track preceeding formally > enacting the CoC. Social expectations on the mailing list already > reflected the consensus that we expect constructive and respectful > collaboration, with informal peer driven enforcement when a maintainer > went a bit over the line. We also had pretty much everyone ack the > documentation patch before it landed. In other words, nothing changed > for dri-devel when we've done this ~2 years ago, except the already > lived expectations have been encoded. > > As much as I welcome this as a first step on a fairly long path, it > does feel rushed since it seems to have happened in just ~10 days. > From chatting with people, I think this left a lot wondering about > what's really going on, with interesting conspiracy theories running > rampant. Personally I have serious worries that to rapid change will > overwhelm the community's ability to process it, with ugly unintended > consequences. Indeed, it feels a bit... rushed. Commit ddbd2b7ad99a418c ("Code of Conflict") was acked by 66 developers. Bringing up the analogy with other source tree changes, I would expect a patch ripping out a substantial piece of code to be CCed to the people that acked its original introduction. Obviously that's not what happened here. Disclaimer: the above doesn't say anything about the merits of the new CoC. 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