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 035A5C79 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:32:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt1-f177.google.com (mail-qt1-f177.google.com [209.85.160.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79F4083F for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:32:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f177.google.com with SMTP id c56-v6so7299532qtd.11 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:32:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538861851.4088.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181008172303.4f06cd94@coco.lan> <20181010165308.187aae51@alans-desktop> <20181010141917.611fb5d8@coco.lan> <20181010210948.62ed5ce6@alans-desktop> In-Reply-To: <20181010210948.62ed5ce6@alans-desktop> From: Dave Airlie Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:32:28 +1000 Message-ID: To: Alan Cox Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000072bca60577e5c14f" Cc: mchehab+samsung@kernel.org, James Bottomley , linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --00000000000072bca60577e5c14f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu., 11 Oct. 2018, 06:11 Alan Cox, wrote: > On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:19:17 -0300 > Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:53:08 +0100 > > Alan Cox escreveu: > > > > > > -Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or > reject > > > > +Maintainers may 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, > > > > > > > > The previous text seems too much legal for my taste. > > > > > > > > > > That is just as confusing. Maintainers have the right to remove, edit, > > > reject commits that *are* aligned with the code as well. > > > > Good point. Yeah, a maintainer can do whatever he thinks it is > > appropriate for a patch - even when it follows the CoC. > > > > > So what exactly is the point here ? > > > > The point is "responsibility" - that sounds like it is bounding a legal > > duty to a maintainer. > > If you remove the responsibility aspect you might as well remove the > entire clause. It doesn't say anything as it's simply a subset of what > maintainers do anyway. > > So how about > > "Maintainers should remove, edit or reject..." > > that keeps the sense that there should be pressure against abusive > behaviour. > > except of course someone will attach a zero day exploit and fix to a > coc-violating rant and then you are a bit stuffed 8) > Why? You can still talk to the person about their behaviour and suggest they modify their behaviour and most likely someone who is an asshole with a 0 day won't be posting it to us. Dave Dave. > Alan > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss > --00000000000072bca60577e5c14f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


= On Thu., 11 Oct. 2018, 06:11 Alan Cox, <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:19:17 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org> wrot= e:

> Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:53:08 +0100
> Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> escreveu:
>
> > > -Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, ed= it, or reject
> > > +Maintainers may remove, edit, or reject
> > >=C2=A0 comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other= contributions that are
> > >=C2=A0 not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban tempora= rily or permanently any
> > >=C2=A0 contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappro= priate, threatening,
> > >
> > > The previous text seems too much legal for my taste.
> > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
> >
> > That is just as confusing. Maintainers have the right to remove, = edit,
> > reject commits that *are* aligned with the code as well.=C2=A0 >
> Good point. Yeah, a maintainer can do whatever he thinks it is
> appropriate for a patch - even when it follows the CoC.
>
> > So what exactly is the point here ?=C2=A0
>
> The point is "responsibility" - that sounds like it is bound= ing a legal
> duty to a maintainer.

If you remove the responsibility aspect you might as well remove the
entire clause. It doesn't say anything as it's simply a subset of w= hat
maintainers do anyway.

So how about

"Maintainers should remove, edit or reject..."

that keeps the sense that there should be pressure against abusive
behaviour.

except of course someone will attach a zero day exploit and fix to a
coc-violating rant and then you are a bit stuffed 8)
=

Why? You can still talk= to the person about their behaviour and suggest they modify their behaviou= r and most likely someone who is an asshole with a 0 day won't be posti= ng it to us.

Dave=C2=A0<= /div>

Dave.


Alan
_______________________________________________
Ksummit-discuss mailing list
Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoun= dation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
--00000000000072bca60577e5c14f--