Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion | Date | Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:51:12 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: James Bottomley > On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > > > Significant concern has been expressed about the responsibilities > > > outlined in the enforcement clause of the new code of > > > conduct. Since there is concern that this becomes binding on the > > > release of the 4.19 kernel, strip the enforcement clauses to give > > > the community time to consider and debate how this should be > > > handled. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > > --- > > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > > > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social media > > > account, or > > > acting as an appointed > > > representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a > > > project may > > > be > > > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > > > > > -Enforcement > > > -=========== > > > - > > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable > > > behavior may be > > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > > > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed > > > and > > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed > > > necessary and > > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain > > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > > incident. Further details of > > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > > > > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't speak to > > enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting instructions, > > with an assurance of confidentiality. This seems to me not to be > > the objectionable part of this section. > > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch). > > So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both paragraphs > removed, the current CoC is very similar to the status quo: namely > every subsystem handles their own issues and that's formalised by the > "Our Responsibilities" section. That also makes me think that whether > we want a centralised channel of reporting or enforcement and what it > should be also ought to be part of the debate. The TAB was created to > channel community technical input into the Linux Foundation. That's > not to say it can't provide the reporting and arbitration structure, > but if we're going to do it right we should debate the expansion of its > duties (and powers).
When the Code of Conflict was adopted 3 years ago, we already created the central reporting mechanism, so I actually think leaving (ie including) the above paragraph is closer to the status quo. I think it's the expanded powers and duties (or perception thereof) that are causing concern and I think debating those to clarify intent, and adopting changes as needed to ameliorate concerns is worthwhile.
I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the TAB will end up performing a mediator role to smooth hurt feelings and remind and encourage improved communication - very similar to what we've done in the past. I really believe that bans will continue to be very few and far between, as they have been historically (I can only think of 3 in the past decade.) -- Tim
| |