From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.linuxfoundation.org (smtp2.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.36]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58E08869 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 00:10:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0202.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.202]) by smtp2.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE2551DCE2 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 00:10:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA4018063C1C for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:23:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: From: Joe Perches To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Shuah Khan Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 11:23:26 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20181109190305.GD21078@thunk.org> References: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <35402D8E-0294-4E34-BE8B-22BCBC20BF66@fb.com> <41b03a5b-1af4-0a87-2736-016f79d4d1ca@kernel.org> <20181109190305.GD21078@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , Tech Board Discuss , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] TAB non-nomination List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 14:03 -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 10:52:55AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > > > > The third mistake was dumping the fully formed CoC and a later update > > > > into the tree with little to no community input I agree with this statement. > So what was done with the update to the CoC was that a proposed set of > changes was sent out to the top 200 or so contributors to the kernel, > by git statistics over the past year, asking for their comments and > their sign-offs. I believe that did not happen as described as at least I was not asked for input/comment/sign-off and I am well within that top 200 or so list. > So there *was* community input, and that input did > result in changes to the CoC update. > > Could there be a better process? I think we're all open to input. If > someone would like to suggest a better way to handle things, that > would be great. Open posting of suggested changes with a waiting period for comment of at least a week.