From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A626B1EA78 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 20:39:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from letrec.thunk.org (c-73-8-226-230.hsd1.il.comcast.net [73.8.226.230]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 38JKdCJT006564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Sep 2023 16:39:13 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1695155955; bh=47Fs3yNkxEjA+go+LPhp3K3ImVWaS8B8Ww8veYYfRrA=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=nMYAWSrE2MpByE0DoZnanGcBvEEQ1SU8SHuXShb4sVOk/ChL+yS0pGovPGkCS/gXr kxNlVBRfeB5yH7YADhBuzGxe7JZ1CLPXo2UuE6bE1u6qKc3SunKVunrQxhF5eorMyc vbJtBBzDv7WN+ssXd7ei5LfTW3a/FHeyhLJ5B8YGgnsj/VkvQLG2y12v1545VIzdf7 Ei+6OsffZroqp1T97LayDo7J9Q309Ix0ViYOqatPqiL4Dwonhz7NDl0WoGSS21jeop c6CeOPze8dQxiNAIKv7TKwaYjpnBH01UGUjana2omQySbQDfWK+18r504zYT2C6EvL q4xLb3y/kNasg== Received: by letrec.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id F2DD58C0385; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 16:39:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 16:39:11 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Shuah Cc: Steven Rostedt , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Maintainers Support Group Message-ID: References: <20230919121001.7bc610d4@gandalf.local.home> <371cb5d1-9997-a03b-4848-550ac8658021@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <371cb5d1-9997-a03b-4848-550ac8658021@kernel.org> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:52:40AM -0600, Shuah wrote: > As a member of the CoC, I respectfully disagree with the statement "but all the > focus has mainly been around telling maintainers how to behave." This impression > might have been the result of one unfortunate incident that took place last year. > is only part of what CoC has been doing. > > A majority of reports are related to incorrect understanding of how the community > works and discusses technical issues. Most of them get resolved without involving > the community. This is behind the scenes silent work CoC does. > > It is unfortunate that CoC is being viewed as a body that is focused on telling > maintainers how to behave. I would encourage to not view CoC work based on one > or two cases that were outliers. CoC worked very hard to resolve them fairly and > that benefited the community as a whole. Shuah, I don't think this is the fault of the CoC. Much of it is in how people interpret the CoC, or think it should be adapted. For example, just this past week, on the maintainer's summit, this statement: >Waah, waah, waah. The buffer cache is *trivial*. If you don't like the >buffer cache, don't use it. It's that simple.[1] ... resulted in Linus being accused as a CoC violation. I'm not sure that it qualifies as a CoC violation, but Dave Chinner certainly thought so, and publically accused Linus of that[2]. Personally, I'm not convinced that people calling people out for real or imagined CoC violations is always going to be productive, especially when it wasn't an explicit personal attack. It's these sorts of edge cases is what causes some people to fear and badmouth CoC's. Which is, I think, unfortunate. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wg=xY6id92yS3=B59UfKmTmOgq+NNv+cqCMZ1Yr=FwR9A@mail.gmail.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZQTfIu9OWwGnIT4b@dread.disaster.area/ - Ted