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 CF5A814B9 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 17:03:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from NAM05-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr730135.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.73.135]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32CAC775 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 17:03:39 +0000 (UTC) From: To: , Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 17:03:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1537830902.4935.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <87k1n8vjef.fsf@intel.com> <20180926091951.GB30730@quack2.suse.cz> <20180926164328.GW20825@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20180926164328.GW20825@sirena.org.uk> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: olof@lxom.net, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, gregkh@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: Mark Brown >=20 > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:19:51AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 26-09-18 09:54:00, Jani Nikula wrote: >=20 > > > This may well be the biggest reason the "code of conlict" did not > > > succeed, despite the large number of acks. >=20 > > One thing I'm missing: Did "code of conflict" really fail? I find the a= reas > > which I follow (filesystems and surroundings) pretty civil but so they = were > > even before "code of conflict"... So maybe I miss some events? >=20 > There's a few things there. One is that the name doesn't really convey > the idea that this is a particularly serious document, and the content > of the document doesn't do a lot of things that are considered good > practices for codes of conduct. A big part of the goal with codes of > conduct is to send a signal to people outside the community that these > issues are taken seriously and that they will get backup if there's a > problem and this stuff meant that it didn't really have those effects, > people externally didn't take it seriously. +1 That's why using a "standard" CoC (even as just for a base) has value. I've heard Greg KH say that people didn't read the Code of Conflict careful= ly, and misinterpreted it as encouraging conflict.