Message-ID: <ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF80518843@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Oct 2018 17:58:43 +0000
From:   <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
To:     <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the
 enforcement paragraph pending community discussion

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bottomley
> 
> On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 13:51 +0000, Tim.Bird@...y.com wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Bottomley
> > > On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@...y.com wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: James Bottomley
> > > > >
> > > > > Significant concern has been expressed about the
> > > > > responsibilities outlined in the enforcement clause of the new
> > > > > code of conduct.  Since there is concern that this becomes
> > > > > binding on the release of the 4.19 kernel, strip the
> > > > > enforcement clauses to give the community time to consider and
> > > > > debate how this should be handled.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley
> > > > > <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 ---------------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 15 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social
> > > > > media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an
> > > > > online or offline event. Representation of a project may be
> > > > >  further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Enforcement
> > > > > -===========
> > > > > -
> > > > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable
> > > > > behavior may be
> > > > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at
> > > > > -<tab@...ts.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be
> > > > > reviewed and
> > > > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed
> > > > > necessary and
> > > > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to
> > > > > maintain
> > > > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an
> > > > > incident.  Further details of
> > > > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't speak
> > > > to enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting
> > > > instructions, with an assurance of confidentiality.  This seems
> > > > to me not to be the objectionable part of this section.
> > > > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch).
> > >
> > > So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both
> > > paragraphs removed, the current CoC is very similar to the status
> > > quo: namely every subsystem handles their own issues and that's
> > > formalised by the "Our Responsibilities" section.  That also makes
> > > me think that whether we want a centralised channel of reporting or
> > > enforcement and what it should be also ought to be part of the
> > > debate.  The TAB was created to channel community technical input
> > > into the Linux Foundation.  That's not to say it can't provide the
> > > reporting and arbitration structure, but if we're going to do it
> > > right we should debate the expansion of its duties (and powers).
> >
> > When the Code of Conflict was adopted 3 years ago, we already created
> > the central reporting mechanism, so I actually think leaving (ie
> > including) the above paragraph is closer to the status quo.  I think
> > it's the expanded powers and duties (or perception thereof) that are
> > causing concern and I think debating those to clarify intent, and
> > adopting changes as needed  to ameliorate concerns is worthwhile.
> 
> If we want to go back to the status quo, then a plain revert is the
> patch series I should submit.

Let me try to be more clear.  I don't want to go back to the status quo.
I was saying that if we keep this document, but omit the central
reporting mechanism, that is a large departure from the status quo,
because the Code of Conflict already established that.  And I think
that having an ombudsman-type role somewhere in the community
is beneficial.

I believe parts of the Code of Conduct are an improvement over the
Code of Conflict, so my personal preference would be to keep it
and try to adjust it moving forward.  I think your patches, with clear
suggestions for improvements (or for deletions in the case where we
want more debate on particular sections before adopting them) is
a good approach, and I like that process as opposed to starting over
from scratch.

> 
> > I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the TAB will end up
> > performing a mediator role to smooth hurt feelings and remind and
> > encourage improved communication - very similar to what we've done in
> > the past.  I really believe that bans will continue to be very few
> > and far between, as they have been historically (I can only think of
> > 3 in the past decade.)
> 
> That might very well be the position the discussion arrives at;
> however, I really think making the process fully transparent this time
> requires not prejudging the outcome.
I don't understand your point here.  Can you elaborate?

Thanks,
 -- Tim

Powered by blists - more mailing lists