From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 A9144212F05; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:49:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731433772; cv=none; b=ae8TAf7nzNt7TPAXnE7TYnXp2o8pMEhjviZsEfbI/V0aXGNJxk2WiwXR6+Llut24uqHuC6NVmgEvca2KyS8M3DOUia8B+YOor8lNiU7Miz+5kA0kch/ndrPSIudlaDNYBX5hoNvEujFRwkasGdhaSYttnjRRxBNYFkSkZ3fiOHM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731433772; c=relaxed/simple; bh=c1v17xoFfsCerNNjyrz6CSJxETYPE5z1Uz4Gqvbilig=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZoRlYVtT1rwQyo2gQnSbfmG0JuH4hYyrPkT4h1U79ETMCOrD8kc09iblAeYey4gnTVcVDoZVuAp2wShM2pw7dtcrPoKFKxmBiaqwTixge9sxAoxDGVVodH3mHGh+BlcO4nbuz8EviXptt1BymzQtbTxhxo5RY6EjLlcD7L8YJAc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=Wf6PSpPg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="Wf6PSpPg" Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (81-175-209-231.bb.dnainternet.fi [81.175.209.231]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 77252710; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:49:10 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1731433750; bh=c1v17xoFfsCerNNjyrz6CSJxETYPE5z1Uz4Gqvbilig=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Wf6PSpPgqTAzDQNQcMPSOV3o4/3GGt4UjA9e3DMNxpgaLQ+Zurp12bU0TfsN4IwhJ ZlJuyeL7bTStOrwcC5MhItCasBQSxQkkO3grLYBzFzB0QRwHYBb/iPncgVLqotja8o /2MM5+GGyB2QhRD8cq5gs5/DCsPHicr0wlczS99c= Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:49:15 +0200 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Shuah Khan Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, corbet@lwn.net, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Miguel Ojeda , Dave Hansen , Steven Rostedt , Dan Williams , Dave Airlie , DRI Development Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/CoC: spell out enforcement for unacceptable behaviors Message-ID: <20241112174915.GB806@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20241108161853.12325-1-skhan@linuxfoundation.org> <20241111223538.GD17916@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <7d14de47-119a-42e4-a911-f8accae4abf1@linuxfoundation.org> <20241112051836.GF17916@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:44:29AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 11/11/24 22:18, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 05:35:11PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > >> On 11/11/24 15:35, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 02:50:45PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > >>>> On 11/11/24 13:07, Simona Vetter wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 09:18:53AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > >>>>>> The Code of Conduct committee's goal first and foremost is to bring about > >>>>>> change to ensure our community continues to foster respectful discussions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In the interest of transparency, the CoC enforcement policy is formalized > >>>>>> for unacceptable behaviors. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Update the Code of Conduct Interpretation document with the enforcement > >>>>>> information. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Acked-by: Linus Torvalds > >>>>>> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > >>>>>> Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda > >>>>>> Acked-by: Dave Hansen > >>>>>> Acked-by: Jonathan Corbet > >>>>>> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt > >>>>>> Acked-by: Dan Williams > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan > >>>>> > >>>>> I think it's really good to document these details. The freedesktop coc > >>>>> team is going through the same process, we've also done a talk at XDC > >>>>> about all these changes, and I think this helps a lot in transparency and > >>>>> accountability in practice. With that, some thoughts below. > >>> > >>> I've been thinking about replying to this patch for a few days now. I > >>> think I managed to sleep over it enough to make that possible. > >>> > >>> I share Sima's opinion here. There is FUD around the CoC and its > >>> enforcement process due to lack of transparency, so I believe > >>> documenting the goals and means is important and will help. > >> > >> Thank you for your feedback. > >> > >>>> Thank you Simona for your review and feedback. > >>>> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> .../code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst | 52 +++++++++++++++++++ > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst > >>>>>> index 66b07f14714c..21dd1cd871d2 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst > >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst > >>>>>> @@ -156,3 +156,55 @@ overridden decisions including complete and identifiable voting details. > >>>>>> Because how we interpret and enforce the Code of Conduct will evolve over > >>>>>> time, this document will be updated when necessary to reflect any > >>>>>> changes. > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> +Enforcement for Unacceptable Behavior Code of Conduct Violations > >>>>>> +---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> +The Code of Conduct committee works to ensure that our community continues > >>>>>> +to be inclusive and fosters diverse discussions and viewpoints, and works > >>>>>> +to improve those characteristics over time. The Code of Conduct committee > >>>>>> +takes measures to restore productive and respectful collaboration when an > >>>>>> +unacceptable behavior has negatively impacted that relationship. > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> +Seek public apology for the violation > >>>>>> +************************************* > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> +The Code of Conduct Committee publicly calls out the behavior in the > >>>>>> +setting in which the violation has taken place, seeking public apology > >>>>>> +for the violation. > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> +A public apology for the violation is the first step towards rebuilding > >>>>>> +the trust. Trust is essential for the continued success and health of the > >>>>>> +community which operates on trust and respect. > >>>>> > >>>>> Personal take, but I think a forced public apology as the primary or at > >>>>> least initial coc enforcement approach is one of the worst. > >>>> > >>>> Seeking public apology is in response to unacceptable behaviors which are > >>>> serious in nature. These incidents are exceedingly rare. When these incidents > >>>> happen, they usually resolve when another developer/community member points > >>>> out the behavior. The individual responds with a voluntary apology to > >>>> mend fences and repair harm. > >>>> > >>>> The CoC gets involved only when it receives a report which is the case > >>>> when normal paths such as peers pointing out the behavior to repair the > >>>> harm haven't been successful. > >>>> > >>>> This document isn't intended to be a complete summary of all actions the > >>>> CoC takes in response to reports. There is a lot of back and forth with > >>>> the individuals to bring about change before the CoC asks for an apology. > >> > >> See below clarification on above use of "actions" > >> > >>>> The CoC seeks public apology only when it is essential to repair the harm. > >>> > >>> Limiting the CoC committee to seeking public apology, due to what it > >>> means in terms of both process and goal, would deprive the committee > >>> from many useful courses of action. I was expecting you were not limited > >>> to this, and I appreciate that you are stating it clearly here. It is > >>> not however clear from this patch, and I believe it would benefit the > >>> whole community if this was explained better in the document. A more > >>> detailed description of the different means of action and outcomes would > >>> help balance the fact that the proceedings of the CoC committe are not > >>> public. > >> > >> The actions CoC takes prior asking for a public apology are working > >> with the individual to bring about change in their understanding the > >> importance to repair damage caused by the behavior. > >> > >> Since these are measures to bring about change, the document doesn't > >> go into the details about the logistics. > > > > I think that's where it falls short. The private proceedings policy that > > governs the CoC committee (I'm not interested here to debate whether > > that is good or not, the question is out of scope) needs in my opinion > > to be offset by more transparency in the procedures documentation to > > avoid the "secret court" image that many attach to the CoC committee. I > > do understand this is not a trivial exercise, as any policy documented > > in writing can have a limiting impact on the actions the CoC committee > > can take, but I believe that this patch, as it stands, gives a wrong and > > possibly damaging impression of the committee's work. > > Thank you Laurent. > > Bulk of the Code of Conduct Committee work involves listening, talking, > and discussing the best outcomes for all involved parties. > > I will add more content to the document distilling the discussion on > this thread in the interest of transparency. Thank you, much appreciated. I think that will be very helpful to maximize trust in the process and in the pleasureless but important work the committee is doing. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart