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;
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.
To:     Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <e223b198-af0e-123d-49bf-fad7e0f9126e@cantab.net>
 <20180919081812.020f19e3@lwn.net>
 <72dadc76-44fe-ecb5-e142-0a9129082c93@cantab.net>
 <CAOesGMjgo5zwKvsbi8txGQbvFHR2N7xKphzhTSGOrruN3+RC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Edward Cree <ec429@cantab.net>
Message-ID: <93b77a9a-12c3-6f7d-d2c3-0e0d7875a28b@cantab.net>
Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:14:22 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOesGMjgo5zwKvsbi8txGQbvFHR2N7xKphzhTSGOrruN3+RC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 20/09/18 02:16, Olof Johansson wrote:
> I would be very surprised if any of my peers on the TAB ever had those
> intentions, and I know I would not have them myself.
In case my references to individualsmade it unclear: I have no reason to
=C2=A0suspect _any_ of the present TAB members would; everything I know a=
bout
=C2=A0them points to them being good, honest and principled people.

> I can
> see how that kind of environment _could_ be implemented with the same
> code of conduct as a base, but [...] I know I
> would fight strongly against that.
It is definitely reassuring to hear you say that.

> There is a list in the first paragraph, but the preceding words say
> that it should be a *harassment-free experience for everyone*. That
> part of the paragraph is to me the most important part.
It certainly _should_ be the most important; IMHO the sentence should end
=C2=A0after 'everyone'.

> Your above argument that the Code of Conduct is problematic because of
> who wrote it seems to contradict your statement that we shall judge by
> code (or text) alone.
I think there are important differences between code to be run by CPUs
=C2=A0and a Code to be run by humans.=C2=A0 And when the author goes on a=
 victory
=C2=A0lap on Twitter and declares the Code to be "a political document", =
is
=C2=A0it any surprise I'm worried?

Applying extra scrutiny to a political document written by someone with a
=C2=A0history ofstirring up political antagonism is like checking the loc=
king
=C2=A0extra-carefully in a patch from a developer who has a history of le=
tting
=C2=A0locking bugs slip through.