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

[<Tim.Bird@sony.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab 
> Em Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:33:05 +0300
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> escreveu:
> 
> > On Thu, 20 Sep 2018, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote:
> > > My view is that it's intended to be a social document, with guidelines
> > > for actions within the community  (Actions by maintainers, actions
> > > by contributors, actions by the TAB).  To me it's more like rules for
> > > a party at my house.  If someone doesn't abide by the rules, I'll ask
> > > them to leave the party.  And I'll ask others at the party to remind people
> > > to abide by the rules.  But the person kicked out can hardly call the cops
> > > on me for doing so.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > I think there's much more value in adopting a widely used code of
> > conduct than writing your own, or even trying to tweak it. If a project
> > uses the Contributor Covenant, you pretty much know the rules without
> > actually having to read another document and wonder what this all means.
> > In this regard, it's really not unlike the GPL for copyleft licenses;
> > one acronym tells you what you can and can't do.
> >
> > With that perspective, I think the changes proposed in this thread do
> > more harm than good. If people still insist the text should be improved,
> > I think the proper flow is to file issues or pull requests to
> > Contributor Covenant upstream [1], and later update to a new version of
> > the document.
> 
> The main experience of the Contributor Covenant's author seems to be
> on Github. There is a fundamental difference between a Github-based
> project workflow and the Kernel: there, everything happens inside a GUI
> interface. Usually, those projects don't have a large number of
> maintainers, nor contributors. Message traffic is typically not high.
> 
> On such kind of interface, the maintainers can edit or delete all
> kinds of messages, even posted by a third party. So, a text like:
> 
> 	"Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit,..."
> 
> would work. If the number of messages are small, it is also an easy
> task.
> 
> It could also work on a smaller e-mail-based project where there is
> just one or two moderated ML.
> 
> However, on a higly e-mail based project like the Kernel, where we receive
> hundreds to thousands of messages per day, and we have a large
> number of mailing lists, in order to comply with that CoC statement,
> all email lists should be moderated. I can't imagine any way to have
> a list like LKML moderated. Even moderating the linux-media ML nowadays
> would be really hard, and would be someone's full time job.
> 
> Even if LF hires a team of moderators for all Kernel mailing lists,
> if someone cross-post a message on more than one list, different
> moderators could take different measurements, with could be a problem,
> if the same email is threated different by the different moderators.
> 
> Not practical (and it comes with a cost).
> 
> Using the terms of the CoC, by not taking any measure to stop
> offensive posts, maintainers wouldn't be "acting in good faith".
> So, maintainers are violating the policy.
> 
> Also, if someone felt abused, the "unacceptable behavior may be
> reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB)".
> The *may* word indicates that he can also go to other places to
> do a similar complain. Implicitly, it opens space to go to court.
> 
> So, the practical effect is that, if someone wants to fire
> a random maintainer, all it has to do is to create a fake account,
> send a bunch of random offensive messages to himself on his real
> account, and then complain - first on TAB - then filing a lawsuit
> (with can envolve both the TAB and the maintainer).

I think the risk of a lawsuit is blown out of proportion.
But, I think your characterization of the CoC as not a great fit,
due to the issues you describe above, is justified.

I believe that possibly there's a misperception about the
"direction" of responsibility by Maintainers in the CoC.  For most
projects, the Maintainers are the top of the hierarchy, with all 
the power.  And this section reads to most communities like
a pledge that the Maintainers will defend the community
and the rank-and-file members in it from abusive behavior.
That is, they will take it upon themselves to do this, when
they wouldn't face any repercussions for not making
such a pledge.  It's an honorable and noble thing.

The Linux kernel is a bit more complex than that.  Maintainers at
all levels are usually both contributors as well as leaders, and they're
squished in the middle between other contributors and Linus.

No one wants maintainers or reviewers to feel overwhelmed
by more responsibilities. I think it's a well-acknowledged fact that
maintainers and reviewers are a precious and over-taxed resource.
And we certainly don't want maintainers fearing repercussions
for failing to enforce stuff.  I don't believe there is any record of
an extreme action, like banning, for anyone failing to enforce
a CoC.

> That's why I don't think that, the way it is, this CoC applies
> to us. The way it is, it is just FUD. I can see a few
> alternatives:
> 
> 1) Revert the CoC patch;
> 2) Use another CoC that would work for e-mail-based workflows;
> 3) Patch it - either changing the text of the CoC or adding
>    a prologue adding ammendments to prevent the above risk
>    and solving the e-mail addresses on review tags.
> 
> My view is that, currently, we have a major issue at the
> contributing process. So, if nothing happens, I may wait until
> the Maintainer's Summit before sending any pull requests
> upstream.

May I suggest that a more productive way to proceed is to keep
doing what you usually do.  The TAB is working out the details
of enforcement policy, and a FAQ to go along with the CoC, that we
plan to present at the Maintainers Summit.  I think the roll-out of
CoC enforcement will be a long, slow process, with plenty of
time for us to hash out what we, as a community, believe are the
best practices for dealing with violations.  I think the vast majority of
the kernel community consists of respectful and well-meaning
individuals, who will see no negative repercussions personally, from
the adoption of this CoC.
 -- Tim