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:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:01:17 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [GIT PULL] code of conduct fixes for 4.19-rc8
Message-ID: <20181023090117.GF2103@sirena.org.uk>
References: <1540066514.3464.22.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <20181022211025.GA8911@kroah.com>
 <23e41205115d317908c63d37a20ee316b44a8404.camel@perches.com>
 <20181023070750.GB3068@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HCdXmnRlPgeNBad2"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181023070750.GB3068@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--HCdXmnRlPgeNBad2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:07:50AM +0100, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

> > As James Bottomley has suggested multiple times,
> > I'd much rather kernel development use the debian
> > code of conduct verbatim than even this modified one.

> > https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct

> The Debian code of conduct doesn't do nearly as good a job of addressing
> issues. (Debian also adopted that code of conduct back when such codes
> weren't nearly as well understood or established.) Many people *in*
> Debian, including supporters of their current CoC, have an interest in
> improving it further and/or adopting a more well-established one.

It was recent enough that a lot of the complaints people might have
these days actually got levelled at Debian at the time it was
introduced, and those divergences were for the most part the result of
deliberate decisions.  A big part of this was based on the knowledge
that there's a particular tendency to rules lawyering in parts of the
Debian community, both generally and specifically with the sorts of
behavioural stuff that codes of conduct are designed to address (there's
been examples of people trying to push the limits there before, it's not
just a theoretical concern).  It's definitely an old code of conduct and
could be improved but that's not the only thing going on there.

--HCdXmnRlPgeNBad2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlvO41wACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9CfEQf/W7QHvYHc49aUTNLdmE1k9E2PTkAUSbdOBpuIbEmhpGIEOdm9XwrD6ZLH
qRfs9GDZQ5hsuQaQSIB+kNoKSzDoPlYNsyD47Z2MMQOEz7snZL7+Dt+NTwLBnN4o
M60iy9m0H+NHPV+AvinfHxdR5LsmkVzE5k2onAzmr+UR6QCSLZQI0S/rssZIvXKn
o58dHMZ2oG9RNN985CimoqExGXK+GH/E8ctMM63W+aUWwFxjnDfcUkGg7PSLPB0J
wCMoMTJ+GU68HHnhhSPilkwOiQbjShnVtyi7DO1DteD7LGs8DwF25hIR3g+vKzDO
EWC/mAtYQyl6BxPzOdaCtNAT9CeacA==
=8nCx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--HCdXmnRlPgeNBad2--