Hi Jon,
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:15 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> 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.
Indeed:
| Contributions submitted for the kernel should use appropriate language.
| Content that already exists predating the Code of Conduct will not be
| addressed now as a violation.
However:
| Inappropriate language can be seen as a
| bug, though; such bugs will be fixed more quickly if any interested
| parties submit patches to that effect.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
