[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <be343ff93c03fd40b524ae6fdc34448dc947ad82.camel@hammerspace.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 20:07:23 +0000
From: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>
To: "gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Tim.Bird@...y.com" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
CC: "mishi@...ux.com" <mishi@...ux.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact
email address
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:24 +0000, Tim.Bird@...y.com wrote:
> The scope of the code of conduct basically means that it covers
> online interactions (communication via mailing list, git commits
> and Bugzilla). Not to be flippant, but those are hardly mediums
> that are susceptible to executing physical abuse. Also, they are
> all mediums that leave a persistent, public trail. So I don't think
> the
> comparison is very apt here.
> -- Tim
If that is the case, then why does this need to go into the Linux
kernel in the first place? The mailing lists, the kernel.org git
repository, and bugzilla presumably all have "terms of use" pages that
could specify the expected behaviour very explicitly, and could specify
how arbitration works as part of those terms of use (and if enforcement
is required, then it could specify legal venues etc).
IOW: if the scope is just communication online, then I would think
there are better tools for that.
Putting a code of conduct into the kernel code itself wants to be
justified by more than just regulating online behaviour.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@...merspace.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists