From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:26:05 -0800
Message-ID: <20181130222605.GA26261@linux.intel.com>
References: <20181130192737.15053-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <CAGXu5j+jBNBsD3pvUSfEh6Lc5T1YMpbM0HeG1c6BHiJe+cKVOQ@mail.gmail.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
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181130151459.3ca2f5c8@lwn.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>, Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>, Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org>, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kern>
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> 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