Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion | From | James Bottomley <> | Date | Mon, 08 Oct 2018 07:09:40 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 13:51 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > -----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.
If we want to go back to the status quo, then a plain revert is the patch series I should submit.
> 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.)
That might very well be the position the discussion arrives at; however, I really think making the process fully transparent this time requires not prejudging the outcome.
James
| |