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 CE7E337144 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 22:02:16 +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 38JM1tm2015299 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Sep 2023 18:01:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1695160917; bh=VlSVJ9vhOWpF++0wJ/7PlY/owKuFZKFQTbDtn73j9fA=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=oiiskmTYwgasxDnLuwnAEBSM6PWQtEaA+37QXfU/Zj+hm0ePsrSWZnmKoqj+NonsF ZzBnlFDlU9BfFF+6HVTffFEIgFq0aZCb7TX1X8XzoNpcacGLBUST82XstCrYGqPsjh 21bnuhy3vsfRvwPIjFjdNbeY6mir9uFrBmfjvbkKMaIbGfx0Z2O18do1KawP59NtOH vDH5ihqNKpIQqd7/vsl13l4qnWT49rpp7HamMKA4kq4srEQ5ARfV4VHiTRuBCLxGfh nyhTblhiIOCHDGiTa0ooIytJMgsWs+TUY7LaF1w9Az3xMwP1iM5lKIPkaQfjagu0tu bf8wcBS7TcQTQ== Received: by letrec.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 689BC8C0385; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 18:01:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 18:01:55 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Shuah Cc: tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, ksummit@lists.linux.dev 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: On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 04:39:11PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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. I just realized that this statement was a bit ambiguous; in the first CoC, I meant the "Code of Conduct Committee". In the second CoC in this sentence, I made the "Code of Conduct". >From the context of what you wrote, I *think* you were consistently referring to the Code of Conduct Committee, but when I see CoC I tend think the actual "Code of Conduct" and not the committee which enforces the CoC. Apologies for any confusion, - Ted