On 11/11/24 22:18, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 05:35:11PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 11/11/24 15:35, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 02:50:45PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 11/11/24 13:07, Simona Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 09:18:53AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
The Code of Conduct committee's goal first and foremost is to bring about
change to ensure our community continues to foster respectful discussions.
In the interest of transparency, the CoC enforcement policy is formalized
for unacceptable behaviors.
Update the Code of Conduct Interpretation document with the enforcement
information.
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I think it's really good to document these details. The freedesktop coc
team is going through the same process, we've also done a talk at XDC
about all these changes, and I think this helps a lot in transparency and
accountability in practice. With that, some thoughts below.
I've been thinking about replying to this patch for a few days now. I
think I managed to sleep over it enough to make that possible.
I share Sima's opinion here. There is FUD around the CoC and its
enforcement process due to lack of transparency, so I believe
documenting the goals and means is important and will help.
Thank you for your feedback.
Thank you Simona for your review and feedback.
---
.../code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst | 52 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
index 66b07f14714c..21dd1cd871d2 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
@@ -156,3 +156,55 @@ overridden decisions including complete and identifiable voting details.
Because how we interpret and enforce the Code of Conduct will evolve over
time, this document will be updated when necessary to reflect any
changes.
+
+Enforcement for Unacceptable Behavior Code of Conduct Violations
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+The Code of Conduct committee works to ensure that our community continues
+to be inclusive and fosters diverse discussions and viewpoints, and works
+to improve those characteristics over time. The Code of Conduct committee
+takes measures to restore productive and respectful collaboration when an
+unacceptable behavior has negatively impacted that relationship.
+
+Seek public apology for the violation
+*************************************
+
+The Code of Conduct Committee publicly calls out the behavior in the
+setting in which the violation has taken place, seeking public apology
+for the violation.
+
+A public apology for the violation is the first step towards rebuilding
+the trust. Trust is essential for the continued success and health of the
+community which operates on trust and respect.
Personal take, but I think a forced public apology as the primary or at
least initial coc enforcement approach is one of the worst.
Seeking public apology is in response to unacceptable behaviors which are
serious in nature. These incidents are exceedingly rare. When these incidents
happen, they usually resolve when another developer/community member points
out the behavior. The individual responds with a voluntary apology to
mend fences and repair harm.
The CoC gets involved only when it receives a report which is the case
when normal paths such as peers pointing out the behavior to repair the
harm haven't been successful.
This document isn't intended to be a complete summary of all actions the
CoC takes in response to reports. There is a lot of back and forth with
the individuals to bring about change before the CoC asks for an apology.
See below clarification on above use of "actions"
The CoC seeks public apology only when it is essential to repair the harm.
Limiting the CoC committee to seeking public apology, due to what it
means in terms of both process and goal, would deprive the committee
from many useful courses of action. I was expecting you were not limited
to this, and I appreciate that you are stating it clearly here. It is
not however clear from this patch, and I believe it would benefit the
whole community if this was explained better in the document. A more
detailed description of the different means of action and outcomes would
help balance the fact that the proceedings of the CoC committe are not
public.
The actions CoC takes prior asking for a public apology are working
with the individual to bring about change in their understanding the
importance to repair damage caused by the behavior.
Since these are measures to bring about change, the document doesn't
go into the details about the logistics.
I think that's where it falls short. The private proceedings policy that
governs the CoC committee (I'm not interested here to debate whether
that is good or not, the question is out of scope) needs in my opinion
to be offset by more transparency in the procedures documentation to
avoid the "secret court" image that many attach to the CoC committee. I
do understand this is not a trivial exercise, as any policy documented
in writing can have a limiting impact on the actions the CoC committee
can take, but I believe that this patch, as it stands, gives a wrong and
possibly damaging impression of the committee's work.
Thank you Laurent.
Bulk of the Code of Conduct Committee work involves listening, talking,
and discussing the best outcomes for all involved parties.
I will add more content to the document distilling the discussion on
this thread in the interest of transparency.
thanks,
-- Shuah
