This is the series of patches which has been discussed on both ksummit-
discuss and linux-kernel for the past few weeks. As Shuah said when
kicking off the process, it's designed as a starting point for the next
phase of the discussion, not as the end point, so it's only really a
set of minor updates to further that goal.
The merger of the three patches to show the combined effect is attached
below. However, Greg recently posted the next phase of the discussion,
so people will be asking what the merger of the series looks like.
Ignoring the non-CoC documents, I think it looks like this
---
diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
index eec768471a4d..8913851dab89 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
@@ -59,19 +59,27 @@ 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.
-Reporting
-=========
+Enforcement
+===========
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be
-reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at
-<[email protected]>. All complaints will be reviewed and
-investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and
-appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain
-confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident (except where
-required by law).
+reported by contacting the Code of Conduct Committee at
+<[email protected]>. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated
+and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate
+to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated to
+maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident
+(except where required by law). Further details of specific enforcement
+policies may be posted separately.
+
Attribution
===========
This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4,
available at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html
+
+Interpretation
+==============
+
+See the :ref:`code_of_conduct_interpretation` document for how the Linux
+kernel community will be interpreting this document.
---
And I'm sure it can be rebased to this without disturbing the currently gathered tags.
The patch can be pulled from
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/linux-coc.git coc-fixes
With the diffstat:
Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 14 +++++---------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
With full diff below.
James
---
diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
index ab7c24b5478c..eec768471a4d 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
* Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
* Public or private harassment
* Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
- address, without explicit permission
+ address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission
* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
professional setting
@@ -59,20 +59,16 @@ 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.
-Enforcement
-===========
+Reporting
+=========
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be
reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at
<[email protected]>. All complaints will be reviewed and
investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and
appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain
-confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of
-specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
-
-Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may
-face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the
-project’s leadership.
+confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident (except where
+required by law).
Attribution
===========
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 01:15:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> This is the series of patches which has been discussed on both ksummit-
> discuss and linux-kernel for the past few weeks. As Shuah said when
> kicking off the process, it's designed as a starting point for the next
> phase of the discussion, not as the end point, so it's only really a
> set of minor updates to further that goal.
>
> The merger of the three patches to show the combined effect is attached
> below. However, Greg recently posted the next phase of the discussion,
> so people will be asking what the merger of the series looks like.
> Ignoring the non-CoC documents, I think it looks like this
Sorry for not responding sooner for this, travel and the meeting today
took up my time.
Anyway, as we discussed today in the Maintainers summit, let's leave the
Code of Conduct text alone for now. It matches what "upstream" has with
the exception of removing that one paragraph. If you have issues with
the wording in it, please work with upstream to fix the issues there as
hundreds of other projects will benefit with your changes if they are
really needed.
For now, let's let things settle down and not worry about hypothetical
situations that might possibly happen in some way or another as we can
debate that type of thing endlessly (it's a good skill we have which
makes us great kernel developers, but it not always transferrable to
other environments).
If real issues do come up in the future, we will address them then, as
we always have the option to change and revisit things as needed.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 22:10 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 01:15:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > This is the series of patches which has been discussed on both ksummit-
> > discuss and linux-kernel for the past few weeks. As Shuah said when
> > kicking off the process, it's designed as a starting point for the next
> > phase of the discussion, not as the end point, so it's only really a
> > set of minor updates to further that goal.
> >
> > The merger of the three patches to show the combined effect is attached
> > below. However, Greg recently posted the next phase of the discussion,
> > so people will be asking what the merger of the series looks like.
> > Ignoring the non-CoC documents, I think it looks like this
>
> Sorry for not responding sooner for this, travel and the meeting today
> took up my time.
>
> Anyway, as we discussed today in the Maintainers summit, let's leave the
> Code of Conduct text alone for now. It matches what "upstream" has with
> the exception of removing that one paragraph. If you have issues with
> the wording in it, please work with upstream to fix the issues there as
> hundreds of other projects will benefit with your changes if they are
> really needed.
Given the different development models, that's not
a very compelling argument.
As James Bottomley has suggested multiple times,
I'd much rather kernel development use the debian
code of conduct verbatim than even this modified one.
https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
On 10/22/18 9:16 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 22:10 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 01:15:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> This is the series of patches which has been discussed on both ksummit-
>>> discuss and linux-kernel for the past few weeks. As Shuah said when
>>> kicking off the process, it's designed as a starting point for the next
>>> phase of the discussion, not as the end point, so it's only really a
>>> set of minor updates to further that goal.
>>>
>>> The merger of the three patches to show the combined effect is attached
>>> below. However, Greg recently posted the next phase of the discussion,
>>> so people will be asking what the merger of the series looks like.
>>> Ignoring the non-CoC documents, I think it looks like this
>>
>> Sorry for not responding sooner for this, travel and the meeting today
>> took up my time.
>>
>> Anyway, as we discussed today in the Maintainers summit, let's leave the
>> Code of Conduct text alone for now. It matches what "upstream" has with
>> the exception of removing that one paragraph. If you have issues with
>> the wording in it, please work with upstream to fix the issues there as
>> hundreds of other projects will benefit with your changes if they are
>> really needed.
>
> Given the different development models, that's not
> a very compelling argument.
>
> As James Bottomley has suggested multiple times,
> I'd much rather kernel development use the debian
> code of conduct verbatim than even this modified one.
>
> https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
Yes, that and the Samba URL are good.
And it's disappointing how patches from James are acked or reviewed on the
mailing lists and then mostly ignored (until the maintainer summit) while
other patches are merged into the mainline git tree.
It seems to be very one-sided.
--
~Randy
On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 23:05 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/22/18 9:16 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > As James Bottomley has suggested multiple times,
> > I'd much rather kernel development use the debian
> > code of conduct verbatim than even this modified one.
> >
> > https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
>
> Yes, that and the Samba URL are good.
>
> And it's disappointing how patches from James are acked or reviewed on the
> mailing lists and then mostly ignored (until the maintainer summit) while
> other patches are merged into the mainline git tree.
>
> It seems to be very one-sided.
Perhaps an apt description is 'cabal like'.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 22:10 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 01:15:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > This is the series of patches which has been discussed on both ksummit-
> > > discuss and linux-kernel for the past few weeks. As Shuah said when
> > > kicking off the process, it's designed as a starting point for the next
> > > phase of the discussion, not as the end point, so it's only really a
> > > set of minor updates to further that goal.
> > >
> > > The merger of the three patches to show the combined effect is attached
> > > below. However, Greg recently posted the next phase of the discussion,
> > > so people will be asking what the merger of the series looks like.
> > > Ignoring the non-CoC documents, I think it looks like this
> >
> > Sorry for not responding sooner for this, travel and the meeting today
> > took up my time.
> >
> > Anyway, as we discussed today in the Maintainers summit, let's leave the
> > Code of Conduct text alone for now. It matches what "upstream" has with
> > the exception of removing that one paragraph. If you have issues with
> > the wording in it, please work with upstream to fix the issues there as
> > hundreds of other projects will benefit with your changes if they are
> > really needed.
>
> Given the different development models, that's not
> a very compelling argument.
>
> As James Bottomley has suggested multiple times,
> I'd much rather kernel development use the debian
> code of conduct verbatim than even this modified one.
>
> https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
The Debian code of conduct doesn't do nearly as good a job of addressing
issues. (Debian also adopted that code of conduct back when such codes
weren't nearly as well understood or established.) Many people *in*
Debian, including supporters of their current CoC, have an interest in
improving it further and/or adopting a more well-established one.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:07:50AM +0100, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > As James Bottomley has suggested multiple times,
> > I'd much rather kernel development use the debian
> > code of conduct verbatim than even this modified one.
> > https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
> The Debian code of conduct doesn't do nearly as good a job of addressing
> issues. (Debian also adopted that code of conduct back when such codes
> weren't nearly as well understood or established.) Many people *in*
> Debian, including supporters of their current CoC, have an interest in
> improving it further and/or adopting a more well-established one.
It was recent enough that a lot of the complaints people might have
these days actually got levelled at Debian at the time it was
introduced, and those divergences were for the most part the result of
deliberate decisions. A big part of this was based on the knowledge
that there's a particular tendency to rules lawyering in parts of the
Debian community, both generally and specifically with the sorts of
behavioural stuff that codes of conduct are designed to address (there's
been examples of people trying to push the limits there before, it's not
just a theoretical concern). It's definitely an old code of conduct and
could be improved but that's not the only thing going on there.
On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 22:10 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 01:15:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > This is the series of patches which has been discussed on both
> > ksummit-discuss and linux-kernel for the past few weeks. As Shuah
> > said when kicking off the process, it's designed as a starting
> > point for the next phase of the discussion, not as the end point,
> > so it's only really a set of minor updates to further that goal.
> >
> > The merger of the three patches to show the combined effect is
> > attached below. However, Greg recently posted the next phase of
> > the discussion, so people will be asking what the merger of the
> > series looks like. Ignoring the non-CoC documents, I think it
> > looks like this
>
> Sorry for not responding sooner for this, travel and the meeting
> today took up my time.
>
> Anyway, as we discussed today in the Maintainers summit, let's leave
> the Code of Conduct text alone for now.
I still think rejecting this pull request in favour of your own patches
rather than doing a combination is a process mistake. However, I do
believe most people can live with the current status quo. So I'm not
going to object further (and I'm grateful for the commitment to try to
be more transparent and actually follow our own processes next time we
do something like this that we also arrived at at the Maintainer
Summit).
> It matches what "upstream" has with the exception of removing that
> one paragraph.
Um, and adding the interpretation paragraph; that paragraph is one of
the most significant changes because the interpretation document
corrals a lot of the potential effects of the undiluted contributor
covenant.
> If you have issues with the wording in it, please work with
> upstream to fix the issues there as hundreds of other projects will
> benefit with your changes if they are really needed.
Deflection to "upstream" is a bit of a red herring on two counts:
firstly because we have no commitment to move to later revisions and
secondly because the interaction of the interpretation document with an
update is quite a big source of potential conflicts: to properly update
we'd have to update both documents which means us potentially rewriting
one or both again.
I also think deflection to "upstream" is a social mistake. If you want
the community to own the code of conduct, you can't keep telling them
it's someone else's document.
James
> For now, let's let things settle down and not worry about
> hypothetical situations that might possibly happen in some way or
> another as we can debate that type of thing endlessly (it's a good
> skill we have which makes us great kernel developers, but it not
> always transferrable to other environments).
>
> If real issues do come up in the future, we will address them then,
> as we always have the option to change and revisit things as needed.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
>