Nouveau - Nov 2018 - [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com> 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.

Thanks,

jon

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 at linux.intel.com> 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

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 at linux.intel.com> 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

On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 14:26 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
[...]
> > 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?
The fact that we've arrived at essentially an original CoC
reinterpreted to the point where it's effectively a new CoC has been
the source of much debate and recrimination over the last few months
... you can read it in the ksummit-discuss archives, but I really think
we don't want to reopen that can of worms.

James

Hi Jon,

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:15 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet at lwn.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com> 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 at
linux-m68k.org

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

Hi Guys,

I initially thought these patches were a joke. But I guess they are
not. I suppose 2018 is the year everything became offensive.

Could we avoid the s/fuck/hug/g though? I have nothing against
re-wording this stuff to remove the curse word, but it should at least
make sense.

What's going to happen is someone is a newbie is going to see a comment
like "We found an mark in the idr at the right wd, but it's not the
mark we were told to remove. eparis seriously hugged up somewhere",
probably google the term as they are unfamiliar with it, find out it's
an alias for "fucked" and if they are sensitive get offended anyway.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 08:20, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert at linux-m68k.org>
wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:15 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet at lwn.net>
wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
> > Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com> 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 at
linux-m68k.org
>
> 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