On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:26:05PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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? I.e. if the latter that you pointed out tells you what you actually should do what value does the former bring? Just looked up archives and realized that there has been whole alot of CoC related discussions. No wonder this is seen as waste of time. /Jarkko
