Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC FOR KS] CoC and Linus position (perhaps undocumented/closed/limited/invite session)

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Tue, 2018-09-18 at 15:55 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> Allow me to open this large can of worms I find sitting in front of
> me, I'm not sure where it came from and I certainly didn't own it
> last week.
> 
> I'm unlikely to be able to produce a trip to Edinburgh (even
> Vancouver might be touch and go, travel budgets and family
> commitments don't always line up).
> 
> I think there might be place for a report from the people who did
> sign off the CoC about the thoughts/process involved in updating it
> (and/or urgency) to the rest of the Maintainer group.
> 
> Now I understand that having a public talk about such a thing will
> likely descend into farce, there may be scope for something of a
> Chatham House Rule style meeting, or just a non-recorded, non-public
> session like we've done for sensitive subjects are previous kernel
> summits.
> 
> It might just be a readout from a similar meeting at Edinburgh summit
> (maybe someone else can propose that), or maybe some sort of Q&A
> session. Maybe Linus could record a piece to camera for the
> maintainers that can't make Edinburgh, but would still like to
> understand where everything currently sits. Said piece would of
> course be burned afterwards.

I'll let the people who signed off on it address this.

> After the past 2-3 days I get the feeling there are maintainers
> unsure about how this affects them and I think assuaging those fears
> might be a good thing.
> 
> (Daniel and I have worked under the freedesktop CoC for graphics
> projects for over a year now, so this actually doesn't affect me in
> any way I haven't already considered over a year ago, when I
> signed'off introducing a CoC to the drm subsystem).
> 
> I'm also equally happy nailing the lid back on the can of worms and
> never discussing it again.

>From my perspective, which is probably fairly widespread: we're already
pretty much policing the lists using a set of rules which match fairly
closely to the new CoC, so there should really be no huge impact.

The can of worms is that you can endlessly debate CoCs.  I don't think
this one is the best we could have chosen because it separates
behaviour into "contributing to positive environment" and
"unacceptable" but we have a lot of borderline problem behaviour that
isn't mentioned at all: things like being excessively nit picking in
reviews; being unable or unwilling to reach a compromise in a code
related dispute.  However, I think I'd rather have a root canal than a
debate on how to amend the new CoC, so I think it's good enough, lets
just go with it.

James