Messages in this thread | | | From | Rainer Fiebig <> | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] code of conduct fixes | Date | Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:43:45 +0200 |
| |
Am Mittwoch, 10. Oktober 2018, 18:23:24 schrieb Eric W. Biederman: > 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. >
As a reminder/clarification one could introduce a line like this:
Responsibilities ================
All participants are responsible for complying with this Code of Conduct.
Maintainers are responsible for[...]
> 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. >
I think Eward Cree aired this concerns early on in the discussion: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/19/234
> 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. [...]
+1. Nobody would get hurt or loose face by doing so. On the contrary.
My suggestion would be: - revert the patch - discuss the matter (and the way it was introduced) at least at the next MS - setup a task-force to come up with a new proposal - discuss the proposal - make corrections, if necessary - implement it
IMO there's no need to rush things in a matter so important for the future of the project.
So long!
Rainer Fiebig
-- The truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought. Richard Feynman
| |