Re: [Ksummit-discuss] TAB non-nomination

Chris Mason
2018-11-09T03:30:21Z

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

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.

> 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.

-chris