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:   Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:42:24 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        Tim.Bird@sony.com, 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: <20181011074224.zzhh3btcj3kxw4k7@mwanda>
References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <1538861851.4088.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF80516F31@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com>
 <1538883209.4088.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <20181008163748.0e68cba5@alans-desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181008163748.0e68cba5@alans-desktop>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:37:48PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>  
> > I happen to think that the fact that the TAB cannot compel where it
> > cannot persuade is a huge strength of the system because it means
> > there's no power structure to subvert if someone were interested in
> > using it to try to impose their own viewpoint on the community.  But
> > that's just my opinion and I did write the TAB charter, so I'm probably
> > biased in this viewpoint.
> 
> The TAB can't handle it anyway because the privacy promise about
> reporting is incompatible with reality for three reasons (and I bet there
> are more)

Really you want to keep any reporting private from people on the TAB
because they're going to be interviewing you for a job in a couple
years.

regards,
dan carpenter