From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga17.intel.com ([192.55.52.151]:28702 "EHLO mga17.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725867AbeLAJgy (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 04:36:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:26:05 -0800 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: James Bottomley , Davidlohr Bueso , Kees Cook , LKML , Amir Goldstein , Andrew Morton , Andy Shevchenko , Daniel Axtens , "David S. Miller" , Dominik Brodowski , Maling list - DRI developers , Eric Dumazet , federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it, Geert Uytterhoeven , Helge Deller , Joshua Kinard , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Linux MIPS Mailing List , Linux mtd , linux-parisc , Linux PM list , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, Network Development , nouveau , Paolo Abeni , Paul Burton , Petr Mladek , Rob Herring , sean.wang@mediatek.com, Sergey Senozhatsky , shannon.nelson@oracle.com, Stefano Brivio , Steven Rostedt , "Tobin C. Harding" , makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp, Willem de Bruijn , Yonghong Song , yanjun.zhu@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3 Message-ID: <20181130222605.GA26261@linux.intel.com> References: <20181130192737.15053-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20181130195652.7syqys76646kpaph@linux-r8p5> <20181130205521.GA21006@linux.intel.com> <1543611662.3031.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181130214405.GG23772@linux.intel.com> <1543615069.3031.27.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181130221219.GA25537@linux.intel.com> <20181130151459.3ca2f5c8@lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181130151459.3ca2f5c8@lwn.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800 > Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from > > other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what > > the responsibility part here means. > > > > I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for > > existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm. > > > > Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake > > by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says? > > After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before. > > Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst? > As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should > be interpreted here. Ugh, was not aware that there two documents. Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged to single common sense code of conduct? /Jarkko