[PATCH] Documentation/CoC: spell out enforcement for unacceptable behaviors

[Shuah Khan]

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 at linux-foundation.org>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda at kernel.org>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen at linux.intel.com>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet at lwn.net>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt at goodmis.org>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams at intel.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan at linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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