On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:22:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The one change that stands out and merits mention is the code of
> conduct addition...
[...]
> +Scope
> +=====
> +
> +This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
> +when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of
> +representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail
> +address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
> +representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be
> +further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Hm, this "applies ... when an individual is representing the project or its
community", and that's the case when e.g. "using an official project e-mail
address".
By that measure, the document seems to only apply to fellows and employees
of the Linux Foundation and noone else.
Why is that? Were they the only ones misbehaving? ;-)
Seriously though, I read this to know what I need to be aware of but oddly
the language of this paragraph says it doesn't apply to me: I'm not using
an official project e-mail address nor an official social media account,
nor has anyone appointed me as representative. I can live with that, I'm
just wondering what the benefit of a document is that only seems to apply
to a tiny fraction of the community. Has this CoC been discussed anywhere?
I'm not seeing it in the LKML or ksummit-discuss archive.
Thanks,
Lukas
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:48:52PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> Seriously though, I read this to know what I need to be aware of but oddly
> the language of this paragraph says it doesn't apply to me: I'm not using
> an official project e-mail address nor an official social media account,
> nor has anyone appointed me as representative. I can live with that, I'm
> just wondering what the benefit of a document is that only seems to apply
> to a tiny fraction of the community.
I do not think you are reading the document correctly. As an example,
it should cover any emails sent to this list. That is not a "tiny
fraction" by my last count :)
thanks,
greg k-h
On Mon 2018-09-17 14:24:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:48:52PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > Seriously though, I read this to know what I need to be aware of but oddly
> > the language of this paragraph says it doesn't apply to me: I'm not using
> > an official project e-mail address nor an official social media account,
> > nor has anyone appointed me as representative. I can live with that, I'm
> > just wondering what the benefit of a document is that only seems to apply
> > to a tiny fraction of the community.
>
> I do not think you are reading the document correctly. As an example,
> it should cover any emails sent to this list. That is not a "tiny
> fraction" by my last count :)
In typical "being nice but not really honest", you failed to answer
the other question in this comment.
Lukas asked:
> > to a tiny fraction of the community. Has this CoC been discussed
> > anywhere?
> > I'm not seeing it in the LKML or ksummit-discuss archive.
And yes, I see problems with this CoC. You seriously expect "all
maintainers" to ban Al Viro for commenting in his usual funny way?
Derogatory comments are now prohibited, so what you do now when
receiving bad code? Ignore it completely? _That_ is evil.
What is wrong with ’s in the document? Normal ascii is '. Same mistake
was in Linus' announcement. Does it have same author?
Publishing email address without explicit permission is now
prohibited. WTF? How does that interact with signoffs? Merging GPLed
code is no longer allowed when the original author can not be reached?
Who is author of the document? First signoff is by Chris Mason (is
that signoff chain real?) but Greg is listed as author.
The document does not describe current practices. It was not
discussed. Yet it states that contributors pledge... and it tries to
speak for me? That does not exactly sound like a positive environment
to me.
No thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 02:24:30PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:48:52PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:22:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > +Scope
> > > +=====
> > > +
> > > +This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
> > > +spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.
> > > +Examples of representing a project or community include using an
> > > +official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media
> > > +account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or
> > > +offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and
> > > +clarified by project maintainers.
> >
> > Seriously though, I read this to know what I need to be aware of but oddly
> > the language of this paragraph says it doesn't apply to me: I'm not using
> > an official project e-mail address nor an official social media account,
> > nor has anyone appointed me as representative. I can live with that, I'm
> > just wondering what the benefit of a document is that only seems to apply
> > to a tiny fraction of the community.
>
> I do not think you are reading the document correctly. As an example,
> it should cover any emails sent to this list. That is not a "tiny
> fraction" by my last count :)
You may want to make that more explicit in the document.
The document appears to be geared towards smaller projects with
official project e-mail addresses handed out to a group and it
specifies dos and don'ts for members of that group when they have
their project hat on.
However in the kernel community there's a large continuum with
Linus and those who send him pulls on one end of the spectrum,
and random folks writing on the mailing lists or bugzillas at
the other end. The further we get to the latter end, the more
menthal gymnastics are necessary (at least for me) to consider
the document applicable to them, given the restrictions laid
out in the "Scope" paragraph.
Just my 2 cents anyway.
Thanks,
Lukas
Em Tue, 18 Sep 2018 21:16:14 +0200
Pavel Machek <[email protected]> escreveu:
> On Mon 2018-09-17 14:24:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:48:52PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > Seriously though, I read this to know what I need to be aware of but oddly
> > > the language of this paragraph says it doesn't apply to me: I'm not using
> > > an official project e-mail address nor an official social media account,
> > > nor has anyone appointed me as representative. I can live with that, I'm
> > > just wondering what the benefit of a document is that only seems to apply
> > > to a tiny fraction of the community.
> >
> > I do not think you are reading the document correctly. As an example,
> > it should cover any emails sent to this list. That is not a "tiny
> > fraction" by my last count :)
>
> In typical "being nice but not really honest", you failed to answer
> the other question in this comment.
>
> Lukas asked:
>
> > > to a tiny fraction of the community. Has this CoC been discussed
> > > anywhere?
> > > I'm not seeing it in the LKML or ksummit-discuss archive.
>
> And yes, I see problems with this CoC. You seriously expect "all
> maintainers" to ban Al Viro for commenting in his usual funny way?
>
> Derogatory comments are now prohibited, so what you do now when
> receiving bad code? Ignore it completely? _That_ is evil.
>
> What is wrong with ’s in the document? Normal ascii is '. Same mistake
> was in Linus' announcement. Does it have same author?
>
> Publishing email address without explicit permission is now
> prohibited. WTF? How does that interact with signoffs? Merging GPLed
> code is no longer allowed when the original author can not be reached?
>
> Who is author of the document? First signoff is by Chris Mason (is
> that signoff chain real?) but Greg is listed as author.
>
> The document does not describe current practices. It was not
> discussed. Yet it states that contributors pledge... and it tries to
> speak for me? That does not exactly sound like a positive environment
> to me.
>
> No thanks,
Agreed. Despite its "welcoming/nice language" (whatever it is), the way
it was written I can't see any good coming from it. It reminds code of
conducts used by some radical groups where it is up to the neighbors to
apply surveillance over their communities, in order to punish them.
Also, it turns maintainers into baby-sitters, forcing them to
do a lot of non-technical stuff in order to punish bad behaviors.
When they fail[1], the maintainers get punished.
[1] Maintainers sooner or later will fail: no maintainer I know has
PhD on psychology (or whatever it is required) in order to teach
good manners to grown ups.
Also, how someone would avoid a misconduct on "public spaces when
an individual is representing the project or its community"?
That basically states that no maintainer or Kernel developer can
ever be drunk on a LF party.
Sorry guys, no more beer :-) (nor Scotch while in Edinburgh)
Thanks,
Mauro