Updates to clarify and spell out the TAB role in approving and overturning
enforcement measures for Code of Conduct violations.

Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Acked-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
---
 .../process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst  | 17 +++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
index 1d1150954be3..4cdef8360698 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
@@ -145,13 +145,16 @@ kernel community.
 
 Any decisions regarding enforcement recommendations will be brought to
 the TAB for implementation of enforcement with the relevant maintainers
-if needed.  A decision by the Code of Conduct Committee can be overturned
-by the TAB by a two-thirds vote.
+if needed.  Once the TAB approves one or more of the measures outlined
+in the scope of the ban by two-thirds of the members voting for the
+measures, the Code of Conduct Committee will enforce the TAB approved
+measures.  Any Code of Conduct Committee members serving on the TAB will
+not vote on the measures.
 
 At quarterly intervals, the Code of Conduct Committee and TAB will
 provide a report summarizing the anonymised reports that the Code of
 Conduct committee has received and their status, as well details of any
-overridden decisions including complete and identifiable voting details.
+TAB approved 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
@@ -227,9 +230,11 @@ The scope of the ban for a period of time could include:
        such as mailing lists and social media sites
 
 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 ban by two-thirds of the members voting for the measures, the Code of
+Conduct Committee will enforce the TAB approved measure(s) in collaboration
+with the community, maintainers, sub-maintainers, and kernel.org
+administrators.  Any Code of Conduct Committee members serving on the TAB
+will not vote on the measures.
 
 The Code of Conduct Committee is mindful of the negative impact of seeking
 public apology and instituting ban could have on individuals. It is also
-- 
2.45.2

On Tue, 04 Mar 2025, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
>  Any decisions regarding enforcement recommendations will be brought to
>  the TAB for implementation of enforcement with the relevant maintainers
> -if needed.  A decision by the Code of Conduct Committee can be overturned
> -by the TAB by a two-thirds vote.
> +if needed.  Once the TAB approves one or more of the measures outlined
> +in the scope of the ban by two-thirds of the members voting for the
> +measures, the Code of Conduct Committee will enforce the TAB approved
> +measures.  Any Code of Conduct Committee members serving on the TAB will
> +not vote on the measures.

2/3 actually means 7/10 for the TAB.

Except two of the CoC committee members currently serve on the TAB, and
will not vote. Assuming they will also not count for the total, 2/3
means 6/8 = 75%.

All of a sudden you actually need 3/4 majority in the TAB to approve any
CoC measures.

Perhaps consider using a simple majority instead? The numbers become
6/10 and 5/8.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

On Wed, 05 Mar 2025 11:54:28 +0200
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:

> 2/3 actually means 7/10 for the TAB.
> 
> Except two of the CoC committee members currently serve on the TAB, and
> will not vote. Assuming they will also not count for the total, 2/3
> means 6/8 = 75%.
> 
> All of a sudden you actually need 3/4 majority in the TAB to approve any
> CoC measures.
> 
> Perhaps consider using a simple majority instead? The numbers become
> 6/10 and 5/8.

I'm a TAB member but I'm speaking for myself and not on behalf of the TAB.

I rather keep it as is and not move it to a simple majority. If the TAB is
going to make a decision that may affect the ability of a developer to get
their work done, the issue had better be substantial where it should have no
problem getting to 75%. Ideally, it should even be unanimous, but there are
cases where a member may be involved, and decides to abstain.

-- Steve

On 3/5/25 08:31, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2025 11:54:28 +0200
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> 2/3 actually means 7/10 for the TAB.
>>
>> Except two of the CoC committee members currently serve on the TAB, and
>> will not vote. Assuming they will also not count for the total, 2/3
>> means 6/8 = 75%.
>>
>> All of a sudden you actually need 3/4 majority in the TAB to approve any
>> CoC measures.
>>
>> Perhaps consider using a simple majority instead? The numbers become
>> 6/10 and 5/8.
> 
> I'm a TAB member but I'm speaking for myself and not on behalf of the TAB.
> 
> I rather keep it as is and not move it to a simple majority. If the TAB is
> going to make a decision that may affect the ability of a developer to get
> their work done, the issue had better be substantial where it should have no
> problem getting to 75%. Ideally, it should even be unanimous, but there are
> cases where a member may be involved, and decides to abstain.
> 

I am in total agreement with Steve on this. The way the document reads now
with this change allows for oversight when the CoC, the TAB and the community
is forced to make tough decisions that impact developer's ability to participate
in the development process.

thanks,
-- Shuah

Hi Shuah,

Thank you for the patch.

On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:48:12PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> Updates to clarify and spell out the TAB role in approving and overturning
> enforcement measures for Code of Conduct violations.

As with any technical change, I think it would help reviewers if the
commit message could explain *why* this change is appropriate at this
time. For instance, it would be good to know if this is meant to ensure
the document clearly describes the existing practices without a change
of rules, or if there's another reason.

Without an explanation of the intent, the CoC and TAB would appear more
opaque, especially given the tags present on v1 that shows the patch has
been discussed behind closed doors.

> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Acked-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
> ---
>  .../process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst  | 17 +++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
> index 1d1150954be3..4cdef8360698 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
> @@ -145,13 +145,16 @@ kernel community.
>  
>  Any decisions regarding enforcement recommendations will be brought to
>  the TAB for implementation of enforcement with the relevant maintainers
> -if needed.  A decision by the Code of Conduct Committee can be overturned
> -by the TAB by a two-thirds vote.
> +if needed.  Once the TAB approves one or more of the measures outlined
> +in the scope of the ban by two-thirds of the members voting for the

There was no mention of "ban" in this section, is the addition of that
word on purpose ?

> +measures, the Code of Conduct Committee will enforce the TAB approved
> +measures.  Any Code of Conduct Committee members serving on the TAB will
> +not vote on the measures.

We're switching from a 2/3 majority to *not* implement a recommendation
to a 2/3 majority to implement it. Without judging the merit of this (at
first sight I feel positive about the change), I think it's worth
explaining why.

>  
>  At quarterly intervals, the Code of Conduct Committee and TAB will
>  provide a report summarizing the anonymised reports that the Code of
>  Conduct committee has received and their status, as well details of any
> -overridden decisions including complete and identifiable voting details.
> +TAB approved 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
> @@ -227,9 +230,11 @@ The scope of the ban for a period of time could include:
>         such as mailing lists and social media sites
>  
>  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 ban by two-thirds of the members voting for the measures, the Code of
> +Conduct Committee will enforce the TAB approved measure(s) in collaboration
> +with the community, maintainers, sub-maintainers, and kernel.org
> +administrators.  Any Code of Conduct Committee members serving on the TAB
> +will not vote on the measures.
>  
>  The Code of Conduct Committee is mindful of the negative impact of seeking
>  public apology and instituting ban could have on individuals. It is also

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

On 3/4/25 13:09, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Shuah,
> 
> Thank you for the patch.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:48:12PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> Updates to clarify and spell out the TAB role in approving and overturning
>> enforcement measures for Code of Conduct violations.
> 
> As with any technical change, I think it would help reviewers if the
> commit message could explain *why* this change is appropriate at this
> time. For instance, it would be good to know if this is meant to ensure
> the document clearly describes the existing practices without a change
> of rules, or if there's another reason.

This change is to clarify and clearly describe the scope and role the
TAB plays in making decisions on violations that don't resolve. When
the CoC has to make a call on instituting a ban, it doesn't act without
the TAB's approval and when the TAB okays it with 2/3 vote in favor.

This is an update to the rules spelled out a few months ago and to
ensure the document is consistent throughout.
> 
> Without an explanation of the intent, the CoC and TAB would appear more
> opaque, especially given the tags present on v1 that shows the patch has
> been discussed behind closed doors.

No decisions are made behind the closed doors. As mentioned above, the
document had inconsistent in when it described the TAB role. This patch
is fixing the inconsistency.

> 
>> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>> Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
>> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>> Acked-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
>> ---
>>   .../process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst  | 17 +++++++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
>> index 1d1150954be3..4cdef8360698 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
>> @@ -145,13 +145,16 @@ kernel community.
>>   
>>   Any decisions regarding enforcement recommendations will be brought to
>>   the TAB for implementation of enforcement with the relevant maintainers
>> -if needed.  A decision by the Code of Conduct Committee can be overturned
>> -by the TAB by a two-thirds vote.
>> +if needed.  Once the TAB approves one or more of the measures outlined
>> +in the scope of the ban by two-thirds of the members voting for the
> 
> There was no mention of "ban" in this section, is the addition of that
> word on purpose ?

It previously stated that the TAB can overturn any decision made by CoC.
This document moves it into a direction where the CoC will not act without
the approval from the TAB. This applies to if and when "ban" is required
which is rather infrequent. This word "ban" is not a new addition to the
document in this patch as it is mentioned in the last paragraph in the
"Remedial measures" section.

The reason for adding the word "ban" here is to make the text consistent
with the "Remedial measures" section.

> 
>> +measures, the Code of Conduct Committee will enforce the TAB approved
>> +measures.  Any Code of Conduct Committee members serving on the TAB will
>> +not vote on the measures.
> 
> We're switching from a 2/3 majority to *not* implement a recommendation
> to a 2/3 majority to implement it. Without judging the merit of this (at
> first sight I feel positive about the change), I think it's worth
> explaining why.

Right. I think this is a positive change and gives the TAB oversight
on the CoC decisions before they are enforced as opposed afterwords.

I can add the above explanation to the change log.

thanks,
-- Shuah

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 14:43:13 -0700
Shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:

> > Without an explanation of the intent, the CoC and TAB would appear more
> > opaque, especially given the tags present on v1 that shows the patch has
> > been discussed behind closed doors.  
> 
> No decisions are made behind the closed doors. As mentioned above, the
> document had inconsistent in when it described the TAB role. This patch
> is fixing the inconsistency.

I guess this should have included a "Fixes" tag and described what it was fixing.

As I was one of the reviewers, I blame myself for not catching that.

-- Steve

> 
> >   
> >> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> >> Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
> >> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> >> Acked-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> >> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
> >> ---

On 3/4/25 14:55, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 14:43:13 -0700
> Shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Without an explanation of the intent, the CoC and TAB would appear more
>>> opaque, especially given the tags present on v1 that shows the patch has
>>> been discussed behind closed doors.
>>
>> No decisions are made behind the closed doors. As mentioned above, the
>> document had inconsistent in when it described the TAB role. This patch
>> is fixing the inconsistency.
> 
> I guess this should have included a "Fixes" tag and described what it was fixing.
> 

My bad. I should have added one. Will do that for v2.

thanks,
-- Shuah