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;
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct:
 Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Mishi Choudhary <mishi@linux.com>
References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com>
 <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
 <d4e4a2d9d63112a854fd30df19fd16f20face810.camel@perches.com>
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <62b70ccb-9484-7842-e57a-9697946636c3@infradead.org>
Date:   Sun, 21 Oct 2018 15:37:58 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d4e4a2d9d63112a854fd30df19fd16f20face810.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10/21/18 3:33 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 08:20 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 20 2018, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> As everyone knows by now, we added a new Code of Conduct to the kernel
>>> tree a few weeks ago.
>>
>> I wanted to stay detached from all this, but as remaining (publicly)
>> silent might be seen (publicly) as acquiescing, I hereby declare that:
>>    I reject, as illegitimate, this Code and the process by
>>    which it is being "developed".
> []
>> I call on any other community members who reject this process to say so,
>> not to remain silent.
> 
> The concept of describing a desire for pleasant interactions
> while
> developing the linux kernel is legitimate and useful.

Agree.

> I do reject this process as well and I think the attempt to
> reform it via a private, non-public method is, at best,
> poor form.

and Agree.

> Joe Perches

Thanks.

-- 
~Randy