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@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 .../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.
+
+Remedial measures if there is no public apology for the violation
+*****************************************************************
+
+The Code of Conduct Committee determines the next course of action
+to restore the healthy collaboration by recommending remedial measure(s)
+to the TAB for approval.
+
+- Ban violator from participating in the kernel development process for
+  a period of up to a full kernel development cycle. The Code of Conduct
+  Committtee could require public apology as a condition for lifting the
+  ban.
+
+The scope of the ban for a period of time could include:
+
+    a. denying patch contributions and pull requests
+    b. pausing collaboration with the violator by ignoring their
+       contributions and/or blocking their email account(s)
+    c. blocking their access to kernel.org accounts and mailing lists
+
+Once the TAB approves one or more of the measures outlined in the scope of
+the ban by a two-thirds vote, the Code of Conduct Committee will enforce
+the TAB approved measure(s) in collaboration with the community, maintainers,
+sub-maintainers, and kernel.org administrators.
+
+The effectiveness of the remedial measure(s) approved by the TAB depends
+on the trust and cooperation from the community, maintainers, sub-maintainers,
+and kernel.org administrators in enforcing them.
+
+The Code of Conduct Committee sincerely hopes that unacceptable behaviors
+that require seeking public apologies continue to be exceedingly rare
+occurrences in the future.
-- 
2.40.1

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

> ---
>  .../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.

First, a ban or temporary suspension seems too mechanical and not in
proportion with the offence of failing to apologize. In my enforcement
thus far as maintainer and now also freedesktop.org CoC member we only use
punishment if behavior has failed to change _and_ we need to protect the
community from further harm. Usually it takes years to get to that point,
unless in extremely severe cases (like public harrassment campaigns) or
when the person stated that they refuse to even consider changing behavior
at all.

Public means you're amping up the stakes and massively increase the odds
of people being afraid of their reputation and losing face. In my
experience people are a lot more reasonable when you discuss their
behavior and what needs to change in private. This even includes the case
where a temporary suspension had to be put in place already first, to
protect others.

Lastly, a forced apology puts any victim into the awkward position that
they're forced to decide whether they want to accept the apology, or
reject it. This essentially offloads part of the CoC enforcement work onto
victims, which often are not the ones with the power to actually stand up
to problematic behavior.

Note that I don't see this as a nack, just a heads up that there's a
potential conflict. I'm not worried though since Dave and me know pretty
much everyone involved in both CoC teams. I'm sure if this ever becomes a
real issue we can bridge things and figure out a solution.

Cheers, Sima

> +
> +Remedial measures if there is no public apology for the violation
> +*****************************************************************
> +
> +The Code of Conduct Committee determines the next course of action
> +to restore the healthy collaboration by recommending remedial measure(s)
> +to the TAB for approval.
> +
> +- Ban violator from participating in the kernel development process for
> +  a period of up to a full kernel development cycle. The Code of Conduct
> +  Committtee could require public apology as a condition for lifting the
> +  ban.
> +
> +The scope of the ban for a period of time could include:
> +
> +    a. denying patch contributions and pull requests
> +    b. pausing collaboration with the violator by ignoring their
> +       contributions and/or blocking their email account(s)
> +    c. blocking their access to kernel.org accounts and mailing lists
> +
> +Once the TAB approves one or more of the measures outlined in the scope of
> +the ban by a two-thirds vote, the Code of Conduct Committee will enforce
> +the TAB approved measure(s) in collaboration with the community, maintainers,
> +sub-maintainers, and kernel.org administrators.
> +
> +The effectiveness of the remedial measure(s) approved by the TAB depends
> +on the trust and cooperation from the community, maintainers, sub-maintainers,
> +and kernel.org administrators in enforcing them.
> +
> +The Code of Conduct Committee sincerely hopes that unacceptable behaviors
> +that require seeking public apologies continue to be exceedingly rare
> +occurrences in the future.
> -- 
> 2.40.1
> 

-- 
Simona Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

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

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.

The CoC seeks public apology only when it is essential to repair the harm.

> 
> First, a ban or temporary suspension seems too mechanical and not in
> proportion with the offence of failing to apologize. In my enforcement
> thus far as maintainer and now also freedesktop.org CoC member we only use
> punishment if behavior has failed to change _and_ we need to protect the
> community from further harm. Usually it takes years to get to that point,
> unless in extremely severe cases (like public harrassment campaigns) or
> when the person stated that they refuse to even consider changing behavior
> at all.
> 
Please see above. Public apology is necessary to repair and restore the
health of the community in these rare cases when an individual doesn't
understand that their behavior could cause harm. The CoC tries to get
the individual to realize that offering a public apology is necessary
to repair the harm and resume respectful and productive discussions.

> Public means you're amping up the stakes and massively increase the odds
> of people being afraid of their reputation and losing face. In my
> experience people are a lot more reasonable when you discuss their
> behavior and what needs to change in private. This even includes the case
> where a temporary suspension had to be put in place already first, to
> protect others.

Please see above. The CoC works with the individual prior to taking the step
of asking for an apology. It is a balancing act between repairing
the harm caused to the individuals at the receiving end of the public
unacceptable behavior and working with the individual to understand the
harm done by such a behavior.

The CoC is mindful of the negative impact of seeking public apology and
instituting ban could have on individuals.

It is a tough balancing act because not taking such actions would lead to
longer term harm to the health of the community. These actions aren't taken
lightly.

> 
> Lastly, a forced apology puts any victim into the awkward position that
> they're forced to decide whether they want to accept the apology, or
> reject it. This essentially offloads part of the CoC enforcement work onto
> victims, which often are not the ones with the power to actually stand up
> to problematic behavior.
> 

This scenario seems to be based on the assumption that the CoC's first
go to action is seeking public apology. This is not the case. The CoC works
towards reaching an understanding between the parties behind the scenes.

As mentioned earlier public apologies and bans are actions taken when
the CoC deems they are absolutely necessary. Bans are instituted only
when the TAB agrees with 2/3 vote.

> Note that I don't see this as a nack, just a heads up that there's a
> potential conflict. I'm not worried though since Dave and me know pretty
> much everyone involved in both CoC teams. I'm sure if this ever becomes a
> real issue we can bridge things and figure out a solution.
> 

Thank you for you feedback and input. The CoC relies on the trust and respect
from the community to the work it needs to do to ensure kernel community stays
healthy as it continues its development work.

thanks,
-- Shuah

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 02:50:45PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 11/11/24 13:07, Simona Vetter wrote:

> > Personal take, but I think a forced public apology as the primary or at
> > least initial coc enforcement approach is one of the worst.

...

> 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.

I guess it would be good to explicitly call out (possibly in an
incremental change on top of this one) that the specific enforcement
steps here are examples, and are mainly for cases where a more
mediation/education based approach fails or extreme cases where they're
inappropriate?  Neither the existing document nor the current change
make that explicit (at least to my reading), it's clear from for example
the reports that are sent that the existing practice is to try to use
those approaches first but I'm not sure that people would realise that
from this document alone.

On 11/12/24 07:43, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 02:50:45PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 11/11/24 13:07, Simona Vetter wrote:
> 
>>> Personal take, but I think a forced public apology as the primary or at
>>> least initial coc enforcement approach is one of the worst.
> 
> ...
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I guess it would be good to explicitly call out (possibly in an
> incremental change on top of this one) that the specific enforcement
> steps here are examples, and are mainly for cases where a more
> mediation/education based approach fails or extreme cases where they're
> inappropriate?  Neither the existing document nor the current change
> make that explicit (at least to my reading), it's clear from for example
> the reports that are sent that the existing practice is to try to use
> those approaches first but I'm not sure that people would realise that
> from this document alone.

Thank you Mark. I will add more content to the document distilling the
discussion on this thread in the interest of transparency.

thanks,
-- Shuah

Hi Shuah,

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

I would like to add that I appreciate the emphasis on rebuilding trust
as a goal, as I also believe trust and respect are essential. This
includes trust that victims will receive the support and protection they
need, trust that authors of behaviour deemed unfit by the community will
be treated fairly, and trust that the community will continuously work
on improving inclusiveness. All three aspects are needed to avoid
driving current and prospective community members away.

> > First, a ban or temporary suspension seems too mechanical and not in
> > proportion with the offence of failing to apologize. In my enforcement
> > thus far as maintainer and now also freedesktop.org CoC member we only use
> > punishment if behavior has failed to change _and_ we need to protect the
> > community from further harm. Usually it takes years to get to that point,
> > unless in extremely severe cases (like public harrassment campaigns) or
> > when the person stated that they refuse to even consider changing behavior
> > at all.
> 
> Please see above. Public apology is necessary to repair and restore the
> health of the community in these rare cases when an individual doesn't
> understand that their behavior could cause harm. The CoC tries to get
> the individual to realize that offering a public apology is necessary
> to repair the harm and resume respectful and productive discussions.
> 
> > Public means you're amping up the stakes and massively increase the odds
> > of people being afraid of their reputation and losing face. In my
> > experience people are a lot more reasonable when you discuss their
> > behavior and what needs to change in private. This even includes the case
> > where a temporary suspension had to be put in place already first, to
> > protect others.
> 
> Please see above. The CoC works with the individual prior to taking the step
> of asking for an apology. It is a balancing act between repairing
> the harm caused to the individuals at the receiving end of the public
> unacceptable behavior and working with the individual to understand the
> harm done by such a behavior.
> 
> The CoC is mindful of the negative impact of seeking public apology and
> instituting ban could have on individuals.

It could also be worth adding that, as Sima pointed out below, public
apology is sometimes not the best option for the victim. Some people may
be afraid to report bad behaviours if they thought that the story would
be made public by a requirement to apologize publicly. I have total
confidence that the CoC committee will consult with the victim to
determine the best course of action, and that is worth documenting
explicitly.

> It is a tough balancing act because not taking such actions would lead to
> longer term harm to the health of the community. These actions aren't taken
> lightly.
> 
> > Lastly, a forced apology puts any victim into the awkward position that
> > they're forced to decide whether they want to accept the apology, or
> > reject it. This essentially offloads part of the CoC enforcement work onto
> > victims, which often are not the ones with the power to actually stand up
> > to problematic behavior.
> 
> This scenario seems to be based on the assumption that the CoC's first
> go to action is seeking public apology. This is not the case. The CoC works
> towards reaching an understanding between the parties behind the scenes.
> 
> As mentioned earlier public apologies and bans are actions taken when
> the CoC deems they are absolutely necessary. Bans are instituted only
> when the TAB agrees with 2/3 vote.
> 
> > Note that I don't see this as a nack, just a heads up that there's a
> > potential conflict. I'm not worried though since Dave and me know pretty
> > much everyone involved in both CoC teams. I'm sure if this ever becomes a
> > real issue we can bridge things and figure out a solution.
> 
> Thank you for you feedback and input. The CoC relies on the trust and respect
> from the community to the work it needs to do to ensure kernel community stays
> healthy as it continues its development work.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

On 11/11/24 15:35, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Shuah,
> 
> 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@linux-foundation.org>
>>>> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>>> Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
>>>> Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
>>>> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>>>> Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@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.

If you have other possible courses of action in mind, please do state
them.
  
> 
> I would like to add that I appreciate the emphasis on rebuilding trust
> as a goal, as I also believe trust and respect are essential. This
> includes trust that victims will receive the support and protection they
> need, trust that authors of behaviour deemed unfit by the community will
> be treated fairly, and trust that the community will continuously work
> on improving inclusiveness. All three aspects are needed to avoid
> driving current and prospective community members away.
> 
>>> First, a ban or temporary suspension seems too mechanical and not in
>>> proportion with the offence of failing to apologize. In my enforcement
>>> thus far as maintainer and now also freedesktop.org CoC member we only use
>>> punishment if behavior has failed to change _and_ we need to protect the
>>> community from further harm. Usually it takes years to get to that point,
>>> unless in extremely severe cases (like public harrassment campaigns) or
>>> when the person stated that they refuse to even consider changing behavior
>>> at all.
>>
>> Please see above. Public apology is necessary to repair and restore the
>> health of the community in these rare cases when an individual doesn't
>> understand that their behavior could cause harm. The CoC tries to get
>> the individual to realize that offering a public apology is necessary
>> to repair the harm and resume respectful and productive discussions.
>>
>>> Public means you're amping up the stakes and massively increase the odds
>>> of people being afraid of their reputation and losing face. In my
>>> experience people are a lot more reasonable when you discuss their
>>> behavior and what needs to change in private. This even includes the case
>>> where a temporary suspension had to be put in place already first, to
>>> protect others.
>>
>> Please see above. The CoC works with the individual prior to taking the step
>> of asking for an apology. It is a balancing act between repairing
>> the harm caused to the individuals at the receiving end of the public
>> unacceptable behavior and working with the individual to understand the
>> harm done by such a behavior.
>>
>> The CoC is mindful of the negative impact of seeking public apology and
>> instituting ban could have on individuals.
> 
> It could also be worth adding that, as Sima pointed out below, public
> apology is sometimes not the best option for the victim.

The CoC takes these into consideration during the investigation,
before determining the best course of action.

Some people may
> be afraid to report bad behaviours if they thought that the story would
> be made public by a requirement to apologize publicly. I have total
> confidence that the CoC committee will consult with the victim to
> determine the best course of action, and that is worth documenting
> explicitly.
> 

Thank you for your confidence in the CoC.

Please note that the CoC has the obligation to keep the reports
and individual information private. This public apology is specific
to a public violation that has taken place on a public email list.
The information and details are already public.

The CoC could receive reports from a community member who could be
an observer and not the victim. The CoC has the responsibility to
investigate all such public violations.

The CoC has the obligation to keep the reports privates. The public
part is where the individual who violated the agreed upon Code of
Conduct is asked to apologize to in response to the thread in which
the violation has taken place.

thanks,
-- Shuah

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

> If you have other possible courses of action in mind, please do state
> them.
>   
> > I would like to add that I appreciate the emphasis on rebuilding trust
> > as a goal, as I also believe trust and respect are essential. This
> > includes trust that victims will receive the support and protection they
> > need, trust that authors of behaviour deemed unfit by the community will
> > be treated fairly, and trust that the community will continuously work
> > on improving inclusiveness. All three aspects are needed to avoid
> > driving current and prospective community members away.
> > 
> >>> First, a ban or temporary suspension seems too mechanical and not in
> >>> proportion with the offence of failing to apologize. In my enforcement
> >>> thus far as maintainer and now also freedesktop.org CoC member we only use
> >>> punishment if behavior has failed to change _and_ we need to protect the
> >>> community from further harm. Usually it takes years to get to that point,
> >>> unless in extremely severe cases (like public harrassment campaigns) or
> >>> when the person stated that they refuse to even consider changing behavior
> >>> at all.
> >>
> >> Please see above. Public apology is necessary to repair and restore the
> >> health of the community in these rare cases when an individual doesn't
> >> understand that their behavior could cause harm. The CoC tries to get
> >> the individual to realize that offering a public apology is necessary
> >> to repair the harm and resume respectful and productive discussions.
> >>
> >>> Public means you're amping up the stakes and massively increase the odds
> >>> of people being afraid of their reputation and losing face. In my
> >>> experience people are a lot more reasonable when you discuss their
> >>> behavior and what needs to change in private. This even includes the case
> >>> where a temporary suspension had to be put in place already first, to
> >>> protect others.
> >>
> >> Please see above. The CoC works with the individual prior to taking the step
> >> of asking for an apology. It is a balancing act between repairing
> >> the harm caused to the individuals at the receiving end of the public
> >> unacceptable behavior and working with the individual to understand the
> >> harm done by such a behavior.
> >>
> >> The CoC is mindful of the negative impact of seeking public apology and
> >> instituting ban could have on individuals.
> > 
> > It could also be worth adding that, as Sima pointed out below, public
> > apology is sometimes not the best option for the victim.
> 
> The CoC takes these into consideration during the investigation,
> before determining the best course of action.
> 
> Some people may
> > be afraid to report bad behaviours if they thought that the story would
> > be made public by a requirement to apologize publicly. I have total
> > confidence that the CoC committee will consult with the victim to
> > determine the best course of action, and that is worth documenting
> > explicitly.
> 
> Thank you for your confidence in the CoC.
> 
> Please note that the CoC has the obligation to keep the reports
> and individual information private. This public apology is specific
> to a public violation that has taken place on a public email list.
> The information and details are already public.
> 
> The CoC could receive reports from a community member who could be
> an observer and not the victim. The CoC has the responsibility to
> investigate all such public violations.
> 
> The CoC has the obligation to keep the reports privates. The public
> part is where the individual who violated the agreed upon Code of
> Conduct is asked to apologize to in response to the thread in which
> the violation has taken place.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

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

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

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

Acked-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

Hi--

On 11/8/24 8:18 AM, 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@linux-foundation.org>
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> Acked-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
> ---
>  .../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
> +*************************************
> +

According to Documentation/doc-guide/sphinx.rst, kernel documentation tries to
use "~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" for subsections (not "******************").

This is not enforced -- it's more of a guideline.

Thanks.

-- 
~Randy