From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-il1-f173.google.com (mail-il1-f173.google.com [209.85.166.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A9E0213EFD for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:44:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731433475; cv=none; b=rmT6uN/QHRvXVl88WaxrqKRLndAlryvd19Z0Mwzu6ad5aREJBcOvE8ANNcK8eCwMPIEifIMep3DYxDkFpWH/ZPjN9HT4faNbkXCV3AkZUAJSCu6m/N+mKPM2mogSAb/2Ly26Ux0a14jEeYGmZUjduBbRPQeqih2jeDE+XJbvSao= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731433475; c=relaxed/simple; bh=y4lqmUbMc1YD6SObguGdeCheozLDWGjBcGm+iitzX+g=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=qjTdGaX/X9CKo5RD83tfFPBWGzcgjO970KInQeno4b/JCwP2XIaCH2JrS98eaICHfcGSKKkpEMKtV8EzvXwnfoXt0Yc3sb86gEVYXKLtz6ocy11KydLtx75Ssw5CqzaYUpi+lHzwqDVHYpVQfxCn/ICV+roR4awvOAgrpA4MRmA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxfoundation.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=NfnSOfX1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="NfnSOfX1" Received: by mail-il1-f173.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3a5e0a3ac48so25961735ab.1 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:44:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; t=1731433471; x=1732038271; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6CO66k8vdkf1/7W/1z4gXCToQvhnpm1AaGiCOH2Lt4I=; b=NfnSOfX1DbC0/j0XDzmcXmQycvkUhOlDpseuM6hjn8bp4GwKCDEaRk0KdTKLF+jfON tQ6tMsn36JKFVu29d9fu5SyKnytDsoR06NKuNgSVkNuhDTLw2TbjWbBxQM1gIjAvygWu jaWzXNhPhR9+lakXb8K1VNLTZQr4mhs2HJKFQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731433471; x=1732038271; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6CO66k8vdkf1/7W/1z4gXCToQvhnpm1AaGiCOH2Lt4I=; b=mIY1GjT2leQaSb35NsAnw7PATs59vhvAfJXezY001YYackY7UomdY+7eqbvPtpJ50F mnj3iLy0dcfZDROOoxlxzB5ccfYLaV+CvoySwse+7psHVtCGk46lkSjjPa/VPUU0YM1H yMD7mRJFDCQpekWdOR5NTnZVDmXffW6MgbZ66hjZYAOTfrPom38pANFH4EGTmEARz0uj i15cCTb5WwwhGt7wuX5ixvd5P5CiH2RKwXU9vm6yvGr1Bqf9NxBfLRHN2s/oLVRHNsaI 70PFqpHsA2WPBKtDho/nvhbJKzO7d7CB0px1rU2tCsAnKfaE03CNfnGzb+PtWry8ZaW4 1ANw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUT01+6bVlbA9NebN0Gz4j1kb+pxittpZqeF3Y1wtJVS+uEaiyljT3MaHovVN045/k9HEI9WzDXRKg=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwKp9WCYxZ9MfxSu43XJkpl5xVLjD1YFEHToO4uA9ykM5w6waD3 fpnKvA9yD4ZJ+P9tjXBl6S3pMogZLWXRpyVnCJzOtDtQHBZ5igmcOXovG8YFNm8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IECbH3zWN1YuCJheg/fgVRxjKKKOBSvEmpjxoBY/JlifdtX6pbym1LtHeex/CjxSfjeXuUQAQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:214e:b0:3a2:f7b1:2f70 with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3a6f1a759aamr171429245ab.21.1731433471302; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:44:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.128] ([38.175.170.29]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e9e14a558f8ab-3a6f984cc0fsm23324225ab.48.2024.11.12.09.44.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:44:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:44:29 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/CoC: spell out enforcement for unacceptable behaviors To: Laurent Pinchart 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 , Shuah Khan References: <20241108161853.12325-1-skhan@linuxfoundation.org> <20241111223538.GD17916@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <7d14de47-119a-42e4-a911-f8accae4abf1@linuxfoundation.org> <20241112051836.GF17916@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Shuah Khan In-Reply-To: <20241112051836.GF17916@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. thanks, -- Shuah