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:   Rainer Fiebig <jrf@mailbox.org>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] code of conduct fixes
Date:   Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:43:45 +0200
Message-ID: <8067297.9B3jLnrCay@siriux>
In-Reply-To: <87efcxtmhf.fsf@xmission.com>
References: <1539202053.12644.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <87efcxtmhf.fsf@xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Am Mittwoch, 10. Oktober 2018, 18:23:24 schrieb Eric W. Biederman:
> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> writes:
> 
> > Resend to show accumulated tags and also to add a third patch listing
> > the TAB as the reporting point as a few people seem to want.  If it
> > gets the same level of support, I'll send it in with the other two.
> 
> 
> There is also:
> 
> > Our Responsibilities
> > ====================
> > 
> > Maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior
> > and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to
> > any instances of unacceptable behavior.
> > 
> > Maintainers have the right and responsibility to 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,
> > offensive, or harmful.
> 
> Which is very problematic.
> a) In append only logs like git we can not edit history.
>    Making it a mainters responsibility to edit the history, to do the
>    impossible is a problem.
> 
> b) There are no responsibilities of for people who are not Maintainers.
>    That is another problem.
> 

As a reminder/clarification one could introduce a line like this:


Responsibilities
================

All participants are responsible for complying with this Code of Conduct.

Maintainers are responsible for[...]


> c) The entire tone of the reponsibilities section is out of line with a
>    community where there are no enforcement powers only the power to
>    accept or not accept a patch.  Only the power to persuade not to
>    enforce.
> 
> Overall in the discussions I have heard people talking about persuading,
> educating, and not feeding trolls.   Nowhere have I heard people talking
> about policing the community which I understand that responsiblity
> section to be talking about.
> 

I think Eward Cree aired this concerns early on in the discussion:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/19/234

> Increasingly I am getting the feeling that this document does not the
> linux development community.  Perhaps a revert and trying to come up
> with better language from scratch would be better.
[...]


+1.
Nobody would get hurt or loose face by doing so. On the contrary.

My suggestion would be:
- revert the patch
- discuss the matter (and the way it was introduced) at least at the next MS
- setup a task-force to come up with a new proposal
- discuss the proposal
- make corrections, if necessary
- implement it

IMO there's no need to rush things in a matter so important for the future 
of the project.


So long!

Rainer Fiebig


-- 
The truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought.
Richard Feynman