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, 10 Oct 2018 21:09:48 +0100
From:   Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the
 enforcement paragraph pending community discussion
Message-ID: <20181010210948.62ed5ce6@alans-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <20181010141917.611fb5d8@coco.lan>
References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
        <1538861851.4088.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
        <20181008172303.4f06cd94@coco.lan>
        <20181010165308.187aae51@alans-desktop>
        <20181010141917.611fb5d8@coco.lan>
Organization: Intel Corporation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:19:17 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org> wrote:

> Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:53:08 +0100
> Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> escreveu:
> 
> > > -Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject
> > > +Maintainers may remove, edit, or reject
> > >  comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are
> > >  not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any
> > >  contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening,
> > > 
> > > The previous text seems too much legal for my taste.
> > >     
> > 
> > That is just as confusing. Maintainers have the right to remove, edit,
> > reject commits that *are* aligned with the code as well.  
> 
> Good point. Yeah, a maintainer can do whatever he thinks it is 
> appropriate for a patch - even when it follows the CoC.
> 
> > So what exactly is the point here ?  
> 
> The point is "responsibility" - that sounds like it is bounding a legal
> duty to a maintainer.

If you remove the responsibility aspect you might as well remove the
entire clause. It doesn't say anything as it's simply a subset of what
maintainers do anyway.

So how about

"Maintainers should remove, edit or reject..."

that keeps the sense that there should be pressure against abusive
behaviour.

except of course someone will attach a zero day exploit and fix to a
coc-violating rant and then you are a bit stuffed 8)

Alan