lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] code of conduct fixes
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.

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.

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.

I don't know how to rephrase that reponsibility section but if we don't
go with the revert something looks like it need sot be done there.

Eric








\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-11 01:24    [W:0.144 / U:19.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site