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? /Jarkko
