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 EFB7BA91 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pg1-f178.google.com (mail-pg1-f178.google.com [209.85.215.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E243870 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f178.google.com with SMTP id r9-v6so1282866pgv.6 for ; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 11:54:33 -0800 (PST) To: Chris Mason , James Bottomley References: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <35402D8E-0294-4E34-BE8B-22BCBC20BF66@fb.com> From: Frank Rowand Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:54:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <35402D8E-0294-4E34-BE8B-22BCBC20BF66@fb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tech Board Discuss , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] TAB non-nomination List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 11/8/18 7:30 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > On 8 Nov 2018, at 16:04, James Bottomley wrote: >> >> Hind sight, though is always perfect. At the time, as a TAB member, >> all you saw was a panic driven by both Linus and the Linux Foundation >> that we needed an updated Kernel CoC ASAP, like today. > > I think panic is the wrong word to attach to Linus' response, especially > around the code of conduct. > >> >> The second mistake was picking the wrong CoC. [ ... ] >> >> The third mistake was dumping the fully formed CoC and a later update >> into the tree with little to no community input > > The update was entirely based on community input. I am going to try to parse that sentence very carefully and narrowly. If you are saying that the update (that is, code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst) then I would agree that the document appears to have been created based on community input. But that is merely a conjecture on my part since the document was created in a small closed group. If you are saying that the creation of code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst was done in a process that was open and visible to the community, then I would disagree. I don't know if this is what you meant to convey, but it is very easy to interpret the sentence in this way. -Frank >> which has generated a >> lot of obvious anger within our community itself. > > It's absolutely true that some members of the community were upset. > > We'll never know if there could have been a better time to make code of > conduct changes. There are a wide range of deeply held beliefs in this > area, and every choice would have eventually led to major disagreements. > But what we do know is that everyone sat down and did their best to > find compromise. That doesn't mean we found the right compromise for > every developer, but I still really appreciate how much time and energy > everyone spent explaining their point of view and looking for common > ground. > >> All I'll say on this >> is that revisiting the CoC is going to cause another huge cascade of >> externally driven attacks which I think we'd all rather avoid, so if >> you're still ticked, then perhaps you should channel that anger and >> stand for the TAB ... >> > > It's really important the TAB is full of people that care about the > kernel. Anger about the code of conduct isn't a great qualifier, but > I'll happily encourage anyone who cares deeply about the kernel > community, even if they disagree with my opinions about how to best > support it. > > -chris > _______________________________________________ > Tech-board-discuss mailing list > Tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/tech-board-discuss >