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;
From:   Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
CC:     <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph
 pending community discussion
Date:   Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:15:25 -0400
Message-ID: <FA87081B-1344-4CC8-8BCC-F00A985719FF@fb.com>
In-Reply-To: <1538861851.4088.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <1538861851.4088.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2018 18:15:34.4806 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: cfce6e7a-0027-4083-9036-08d62d4a0b1e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR15MB1885
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-10-08_08:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.

-chris