From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE43D1F4C1 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 13:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2437267AbfJQN4F (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:56:05 -0400 Received: from smtp.hosts.co.uk ([85.233.160.19]:45542 "EHLO smtp.hosts.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726470AbfJQN4F (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:56:05 -0400 Received: from [92.30.121.54] (helo=[192.168.1.22]) by smtp.hosts.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1iL6G0-0006ZP-60; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 14:56:01 +0100 Subject: Re: Raise your hand to Ack jk/code-of-conduct if your Ack fell thru cracks To: Jeff King , Eric Wong Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin References: <20191010001853.h2pepvg7yilevipv@dcvr> <20191011055827.GA20094@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Philip Oakley Message-ID: <00cb61a1-0044-1faf-b237-2ac449a34091@iee.email> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 14:56:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191011055827.GA20094@sigill.intra.peff.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi all, On 11/10/2019 06:58, Jeff King wrote: > I snipped your concerns with some of the language. I do agree with you > that a lot of is open to interpretation. But I also think it's > impossible to get it 100% airtight. My feeling was that it was a good > idea to go with some existing, well-established text, even if it has > some wiggle room. And then rely on the existing community and especially > the people listed above to do that interpretation. > > So... > >> Just pointing out some concerns of mine. No ack from me >> (but it's not a NACK, either). I'm pretty ambivalent... > For me it is obviously an ack, but I wanted to make clear that I think > your concerns (and those of others who spoke up, like René and Gábor) > are certainly_valid_. I just think that adopting this CoC is, while not > perfect, the least-bad option. > > I'd also say that we might consider living with it for a while (6 > months? a year?) and seeing if people have an interest in revising it > after that point based on experience.  I also didn't positively ack the CoC (code of conduct). I'm not sure it addresses the broader _underlying_ issues that may need to be addressed that are behind the pressure for CoCs. I'd also commented [1] on the git-for-windows CoC partly because the CoC didn't positively address the need for tolerance. These CoCs are essentially defensive, rather than forward looking. In essence they say: We are a welcoming and inspiring community, open to anyone and everyone(all 2^16 variants). We list various egregious behaviours that are unwanted and hence intolerable. We list responses to such intolerable behaviour. However we (in the CoC document) don't really address what we may need to do to extend the community to the broader many. Part of the wider problem is we often don't appreciate our pre-existing organisational biases (e.g.[2, 3]) that we fit into within a community. For example the implicit gender bias toward independent sole author contributions[4], rather than the inclusiveness of co-authorship as a norm. While following peff's "interpretation" document link [5], I did see, in the wider kernel document, that it does have a "Co-developed-by:" option [6] but then requires a secondary "Signed-off-by:", thus making those who co-author do extra work, which shouldn't be required. Thus, while the CoC is good, for clarifying the egregious behaviour issues, it doesn't really address the wider 'Diversity and Equality' *expectations* within the community. Philip [1] https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/661#issuecomment-186846113 [2] "institutional racism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism [3] "institutional sexism" ... no Wikipedia article? [4] https://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/sponsored/3082288/want-to-increase-diversity-it-starts-with-the-job-ad [5] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.html [6] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html