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 17:30:55 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>
To:     Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
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: <20181010173055.5ea10f95@coco.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20181010210948.62ed5ce6@alans-desktop>
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>
        <20181010210948.62ed5ce6@alans-desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:09:48 +0100
Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> escreveu:

> 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.

Works for me.

> 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)

:-)

Thanks,
Mauro