On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Luc Verhaegen <libv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Luc Verhaegen <libv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 03:36:32PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Luc Verhaegen <libv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 03:24:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Luc Verhaegen <libv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:48:15AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> >> >> >> freedesktop.org has adopted a formal&enforced code of conduct: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.fooishbar.org/blog/fdo-contributor-covenant/ >> >> >> >> https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Besides formalizing things a bit more I don't think this changes >> >> >> >> anything for us, we've already peer-enforced respectful and >> >> >> >> constructive interactions since a long time. But it's good to document >> >> >> >> things properly. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Note: As Daniel Stone mentioned in the announcement fd.o admins >> >> >> >> started chatting with the communities their hosting, which includs the >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "started" and "chatting"? That is very weakly formulated. >> >> >> >> >> >> Intentionally so ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> X.org foundation board, to figure out how to fan out enforcement and >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This was not voted upon or even mentioned during the last board meeting. >> >> >> > And i think the next board meeting is only in 2 days time. As such, this >> >> >> > seems like it is not something that's officially sanctioned by the X.org >> >> >> > foundation board, but you sure do try to make it sound like such. >> >> >> >> >> >> ... because it is not yet sanctioned by the board in any way. So not >> >> >> exactly sure where you're reading this into my commit message, because >> >> >> it wasn't my intention to make it sounds like this is sanctioned by >> >> >> the xorg board officially, nor did I state that anywhere. I just said >> >> >> that discussions already started to happen, that's really all there >> >> >> is. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for making that clear. >> >> >> >> Yeah I understand the confusion, since it wasn't clear that this mail >> >> was written by me with my drm maintainer hat on, not me in my role as >> >> xorg bod secretary. Nor me as an intel employee. I should have made >> >> that clearer. >> > >> > I was not confused about that, especially since you mentioned the board. >> > But this clearly was not something already approved by the X.org >> > foundation board. >> >> Since there is a lot of "it" and "this" in both your and Daniel's >> messages, without clarifying what you're both actually talking about, I >> think for clarity it should be noted that, AFAIU, the decision to adopt >> the CoC is up to the freedesktop.org admins, not the X.org board, and >> the discussion about enforcing is to take place between the two. > > It's the way in which this is being done that makes me very weary of > this code of conduct. > > It seems like a very unilateral move, quite likely by just a single > person. There is no record of any prior discussion, not with the > affected projects, not on any mailing list, not on the irc channels > where i am on (and i doubt it is logged publicly anywhere). This commit > Daniel Vetter just posted comes the closest to any discussion, wayland > never was so lucky. This feels like the typical freedesktop.org move, > and i am quite allergic to those as i and the projects i have been > involved in have been the target of such unilateral decisions several > times. Isn't this thread the discussion? Daniel proposed a code of conduct for drm. Let's discuss. AFAIK, the previous discussion was mostly just reaching out to various contributors to see if they were interested in the first place. I agree that the commit message wording is confusing. Alex > > I see the mentioning of the X.org foundation board here as an attempt to > give this surprise Code of Conduct some gravitas which it didn't > deserve, as it was far too easily debunked. The board of directors never > voted on this, and i would like to see the emails of the discussion > prior to this mentioning here. If there were any, they were not before > the surprise wayland commit. > > I would welcome such a code of conduct though, if it had been the result > of an honest, open and transparent community discussion. But that's not > something i have often seen at freedesktop.org. And i have a feeling as > to how it will be applied and who or what projects it will be applied > to, and how transparent that process will be. If people would be > interested in seeing this Code of Conduct retro-actively, i might have a > few cases that i would want to bring up, though. > > Luc Verhaegen. > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
