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 CED8D1003 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:51:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from NAM05-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr710126.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.71.126]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E73A7EC for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:51:46 +0000 (UTC) From: To: , , Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:51:40 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87tvmdvoaj.fsf@intel.com> <20180925073848.5f42a8ec@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > -----Original Message----- > From: Shuah Khan >=20 > On 09/25/2018 07:38 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:56:04 +0300 > > Jani Nikula wrote: > > > >> Is the implication that further discussion on this is futile? > >> > >> Fire-and-forget is not exactly the best approach for rolling out a cod= e > >> of conduct. > > > > I doubt anybody is going to forget! :) >=20 > It is disappointing that it had to be committed without following the usu= al > process. That said, I do support the direction and stating the expectatio= ns. >=20 > > > > This is only my opinion, but I don't believe that the current CoC is se= t > > 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. > > >=20 > One of the reasons for starting this thread is to get a clear understandi= ng > of the intent for next steps and the next steps for involving the communi= ty > and evolving the CoC. I hope a concrete plan or some plan emerges out of > this > discussion. >=20 > 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.=20 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 th= e 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