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:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:29:51 -0800
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>,
        Maling list - DRI developers 
        <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>, Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>,
        Linux mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-parisc <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        nouveau <nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        sean.wang@mediatek.com,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        shannon.nelson@oracle.com, Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>, makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, yanjun.zhu@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
Message-ID: <20181130222951.GA26980@linux.intel.com>
References: <20181130192737.15053-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <CAGXu5j+jBNBsD3pvUSfEh6Lc5T1YMpbM0HeG1c6BHiJe+cKVOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181130195652.7syqys76646kpaph@linux-r8p5>
 <20181130205521.GA21006@linux.intel.com>
 <1543611662.3031.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <20181130214405.GG23772@linux.intel.com>
 <1543615069.3031.27.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <20181130221219.GA25537@linux.intel.com>
 <20181130151459.3ca2f5c8@lwn.net>
 <20181130222605.GA26261@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181130222605.GA26261@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:26:05PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
> > Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
> > > other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
> > > the responsibility part here means.
> > > 
> > > I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
> > > existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
> > > 
> > > Is this wrong interpretation?  Should I conclude that I made a mistake
> > > by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
> > > After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
> > 
> > Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst?
> > As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should
> > be interpreted here.
> 
> Ugh, was not aware that there two documents.
> 
> Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged to
> single common sense code of conduct?

I.e. if the latter that you pointed out tells you what you actually
should do what value does the former bring?

Just looked up archives and realized that there has been whole alot
of CoC related discussions. No wonder this is seen as waste of time.

/Jarkko