From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:26:28 -0800 Message-ID: <1543616788.3031.38.camel@HansenPartnership.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181130221219.GA25537@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: 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 , Jonathan Corbet , Joshua Kinard , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" linux- List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 14:12 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: [...] > I pasted this already to another response and this was probably the > part that ignited me to send the patch set (was a few days ago, so > had to revisit to find the exact paragraph): I replied in to the other thread. > "Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or > reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other > contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban > temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that > they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful." > > The whole patch set is neither a joke/troll nor something I would > necessarily want to be include myself. It does have the RFC tag. > > 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. That's wrong in the light of the interpretation document, yes. > Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a > mistake by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it > *actually* says? You can't read it in isolation, you need to read it along with the interpretation document. The latter was created precisely because there was a lot of push back on interpretation problems and ambiguities with the original CoC and it specifically covers this case (and a lot of others). James > After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than > before. > > /Jarkko >