From: <Tim.Bird@sony.com>
To: <shuah@kernel.org>, <corbet@lwn.net>, <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc: olof@lxom.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH-TOPIC] Review - Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:51:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF80512DBA@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ddae4540-4202-76bd-fbd7-c891001cc71d@kernel.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shuah Khan
>
> On 09/25/2018 07:38 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:56:04 +0300
> > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Is the implication that further discussion on this is futile?
> >>
> >> Fire-and-forget is not exactly the best approach for rolling out a code
> >> of conduct.
> >
> > I doubt anybody is going to forget! :)
>
> It is disappointing that it had to be committed without following the usual
> process. That said, I do support the direction and stating the expectations.
>
> >
> > This is only my opinion, but I don't believe that the current CoC is set
> > in stone and immune to further changes. It is something to start with.
> > I expect we will end up evolving it, like we evolve our other code. We
> > will need to figure out how to do that, though; that discussion has not
> > yet even begun.
> >
>
> One of the reasons for starting this thread is to get a clear understanding
> of the intent for next steps and the next steps for involving the community
> and evolving the CoC. I hope a concrete plan or some plan emerges out of
> this
> discussion.
>
> Since the way it currently reads, it adds to maintainer responsibilities,
> it is important to open it up for review by all maintainers as opposed to
> participants of just the Maintainer Summit which is a very small group.
I am speaking only for myself, but I couldn't agree more, on all points.
I think Mauro raised some very good points about aspects of the CoC
being a better fit for a github-style project as opposed to a widely
distributed e-mail based project. And certainly the ambiguity regarding the
treatment of published e-mails as private information needs to be
resolved. So I think it's unquestionable that the CoC will need to change.
But I still don't know what the process for that is, and I hope that
we'll see some suggestions at Maintainers Summit, that can be discussed
as a wider community. I agree that the Maintainer Summit and Plumbers
doesn't represent all affected community members, and that should
definitely be taken into account.
-- Tim
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-25 16:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-24 14:24 Shuah Khan
2018-09-24 17:51 ` James Morris
2018-09-24 18:11 ` John W. Linville
2018-09-24 19:54 ` Josh Triplett
2018-09-24 20:46 ` Olof Johansson
2018-09-24 22:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-25 4:26 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-09-25 6:21 ` Olof Johansson
2018-09-25 8:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-25 16:42 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-09-25 20:03 ` Shuah Khan
2018-09-25 6:46 ` Dan Williams
2018-09-24 19:31 ` Jason Cooper
2018-09-26 20:57 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-09-24 23:15 ` James Bottomley
2018-09-25 1:35 ` Joe Perches
2018-09-26 6:54 ` Jani Nikula
2018-09-26 9:19 ` Jan Kara
2018-09-26 9:58 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-09-26 12:35 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-09-26 16:43 ` Mark Brown
2018-09-26 17:03 ` Tim.Bird
2018-09-26 12:30 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-09-26 12:51 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-09-26 14:01 ` Shuah Khan
2018-09-25 10:56 ` Jani Nikula
2018-09-25 13:38 ` Jonathan Corbet
2018-09-25 15:22 ` Shuah Khan
2018-09-25 16:51 ` Tim.Bird [this message]
2018-09-26 8:04 ` Laura Abbott
2018-09-26 14:47 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2018-09-27 8:30 ` Laura Abbott
2018-10-04 16:27 ` James Bottomley
2018-10-05 18:10 ` Shuah Khan
2018-10-06 21:39 ` James Bottomley
2018-10-07 15:27 ` Shuah Khan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF80512DBA@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com \
--to=tim.bird@sony.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@intel.com \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=olof@lxom.net \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox