Re: [Ksummit-discuss] TAB non-nomination

[Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>]

On 11/08/2018 08:30 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2018, at 16:04, James Bottomley wrote:
>>
>> Hind sight, though is always perfect.  At the time, as a TAB member,
>> all you saw was a panic driven by both Linus and the Linux Foundation
>> that we needed an updated Kernel CoC ASAP, like today.
> 
> I think panic is the wrong word to attach to Linus' response, especially 
> around the code of conduct.
> 
>>
>> The second mistake was picking the wrong CoC. [ ... ]
>>
>> The third mistake was dumping the fully formed CoC and a later update
>> into the tree with little to no community input
> 

It is unfortunate it had to start that way. I also understand at times it
might be necessary to do so based on my experience with the Linux Kernel
Community Enforcement Statement process. What should TAB do as a body if
it needs to take action without an option to initiate an open discussion?

I am of the opinion that that was the situation the TAB was in a couple of
months ago. Whether that the right choice or not, it is important to continue
the conversation and come to an understanding that this is a problem that
needs to ab addressed. I think we are on the path to doing that.

> The update was entirely based on community input.
> 
>> which has generated a
>> lot of obvious anger within our community itself.
> 
> It's absolutely true that some members of the community were upset.
> 
> We'll never know if there could have been a better time to make code of 
> conduct changes.  There are a wide range of deeply held beliefs in this 
> area, and every choice would have eventually led to major disagreements. 
>   But what we do know is that everyone sat down and did their best to 
> find compromise.  That doesn't mean we found the right compromise for 
> every developer, but I still really appreciate how much time and energy 
> everyone spent explaining their point of view and looking for common 
> ground.
> 

The positive take away for me in what transpired these past couple of
months is just that. The community came together to discuss and express
their point of view to move the nudge process forward and speak out to
say "we didn't like the way it was handled".

I don't see this as an end and we have to continue to evolve CoC as a
living document.

>> All I'll say on this
>> is that revisiting the CoC is going to cause another huge cascade of
>> externally driven attacks which I think we'd all rather avoid, so if
>> you're still ticked, then perhaps you should channel that anger and
>> stand for the TAB ...
>>
> 
> It's really important the TAB is full of people that care about the 
> kernel.  Anger about the code of conduct isn't a great qualifier, but 
> I'll happily encourage anyone who cares deeply about the kernel 
> community, even if they disagree with my opinions about how to best 
> support it.
> 

Right. This is the reason why I am standing for TAB and I want to be part
of the solution and not part of the problem. I am looking for constructive
ways to keep our community viable for years to come.

thanks,
-- Shuah