On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 22:10 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 01:15:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > This is the series of patches which has been discussed on both ksummit- > > > discuss and linux-kernel for the past few weeks. As Shuah said when > > > kicking off the process, it's designed as a starting point for the next > > > phase of the discussion, not as the end point, so it's only really a > > > set of minor updates to further that goal. > > > > > > The merger of the three patches to show the combined effect is attached > > > below. However, Greg recently posted the next phase of the discussion, > > > so people will be asking what the merger of the series looks like. > > > Ignoring the non-CoC documents, I think it looks like this > > > > Sorry for not responding sooner for this, travel and the meeting today > > took up my time. > > > > Anyway, as we discussed today in the Maintainers summit, let's leave the > > Code of Conduct text alone for now. It matches what "upstream" has with > > the exception of removing that one paragraph. If you have issues with > > the wording in it, please work with upstream to fix the issues there as > > hundreds of other projects will benefit with your changes if they are > > really needed. > > Given the different development models, that's not > a very compelling argument. > > As James Bottomley has suggested multiple times, > I'd much rather kernel development use the debian > code of conduct verbatim than even this modified one. > > https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
The Debian code of conduct doesn't do nearly as good a job of addressing issues. (Debian also adopted that code of conduct back when such codes weren't nearly as well understood or established.) Many people *in* Debian, including supporters of their current CoC, have an interest in improving it further and/or adopting a more well-established one.
