On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:44:29AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > 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. Thank you, much appreciated. I think that will be very helpful to maximize trust in the process and in the pleasureless but important work the committee is doing. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
