Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:30:30 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lxom.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.
Message-ID: <20180919073030.3629bc7f@coco.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20180918191613.GD4501@amd>
References: <20180917114852.hzo36b2fewdzqc4t@wunner.de>
        <20180917122430.GA3320@kroah.com>
        <20180918191613.GD4501@amd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Em Tue, 18 Sep 2018 21:16:14 +0200
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> 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: =20
> > > 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 accou=
nt,
> > > 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 a=
pply
> > > to a tiny fraction of the community. =20
> >=20
> > 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 :) =20
>=20
> In typical "being nice but not really honest", you failed to answer
> the other question in this comment.
>=20
> Lukas asked:
>=20
> > > 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. =20
>=20
> And yes, I see problems with this CoC. You seriously expect "all
> maintainers" to ban Al Viro for commenting in his usual funny way?
>=20
> Derogatory comments are now prohibited, so what you do now when
> receiving bad code? Ignore it completely? _That_ is evil.
>=20
> What is wrong with =E2=80=99s in the document? Normal ascii is '. Same mi=
stake
> was in Linus' announcement. Does it have same author?
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> Who is author of the document? First signoff is by Chris Mason (is
> that signoff chain real?) but Greg is listed as author.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> No thanks,

Agreed. Despite its "welcoming/nice language" (whatever it is), the way=20
it was written I can't see any good coming from it. It reminds code of=20
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.=20

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