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:   Mon, 8 Oct 2018 12:04:36 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To:     Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the
 enforcement paragraph pending community discussion
Message-ID: <20181008190435.GA3963@localhost>
References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <1538861851.4088.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <FA87081B-1344-4CC8-8BCC-F00A985719FF@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <FA87081B-1344-4CC8-8BCC-F00A985719FF@fb.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:15:25PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2018, at 17:37, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Significant concern has been expressed about the responsibilities
> > outlined in
> > the enforcement clause of the new code of conduct.  Since there is
> > concern
> > that this becomes binding on the release of the 4.19 kernel, strip the
> > enforcement clauses to give the community time to consider and debate
> > how this
> > should be handled.
> 
> Even in the places where I don't agree with the discussion about what our
> code of conduct should be, I love that we're having it.  Removing the
> enforcement clause basically goes back to the way things were.  We'd be
> recognizing that we know issues happen, and explicitly stating that when
> serious events do happen, the community as a whole isn't committing to
> helping.
> 
> It's true there are a lot of questions about how the community resolves
> problems and holds each other accountable for maintaining any code of
> conduct.  I think the enforcement section leaves us the room we need to
> continue discussions and still make it clear that we're making an effort to
> shift away from the harsh discussions in the past.

Emphatically seconded.

I absolutely agree that we should to work on the enforcement section
over time; for instance, I agree that a dedicated team (ideally with
some training) would be better than vesting this in a technical
decision-making body.

But I agree with Chris that we should not remove this entirely. And I
don't think there's any special significance to this being in the 4.19
release as compared to an -rc or git HEAD.