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

Tue Nov 12 17:49:15 UTC 2024

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 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.

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