Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Code of Conduct Interpretation: Add document explaining how the Code …
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
…of Conduct is to be interpreted

The Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct is a general document meant to
provide a set of rules for almost any open source community.  Every
open-source community is unique and the Linux kernel is no exception.
Because of this, this document describes how we in the Linux kernel
community will interpret it.  We also do not expect this interpretation
to be static over time, and will adjust it as needed.

This document was created with the input and feedback of the TAB as well
as many current kernel maintainers.

Co-Developed-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Co-Developed-by: Olof Johansson <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Alex Deucher <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Amir Goldstein <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Chris Mason <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Christian Lütke-Stetzkamp <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Dave Airlie <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Dave Hansen <[email protected]>
Acked-by: David Ahern <[email protected]>
Acked-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Dominik Brodowski <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Felix Kuehling <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Gregory CLEMENT <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Hans Verkuil <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Hans de Goede <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Harry Wentland <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
Acked-by: James Smart <[email protected]>
Acked-by: James Smart <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jeff Kirsher <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jessica Yu <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jiri Kosina <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Joerg Roedel <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Johan Hovold <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Kuninori Morimoto <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Lina Iyer <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Matias Bjørling <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Mike Rapoport <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Mishi Choudhary <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Nikolay Borisov <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Oded Gabbay <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Rob Clark <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Sean Paul <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Sebastian Reichel <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Sergio Paracuellos <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shawn Guo <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Takashi Iwai <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Thierry Reding <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Todd Poynor <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Wei Yongjun <[email protected]>
Acked-by: YueHaibing <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
  • Loading branch information
gregkh committed Oct 22, 2018
1 parent c1d1ba8 commit 79dbeed
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Showing 2 changed files with 154 additions and 0 deletions.
153 changes: 153 additions & 0 deletions Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
Linux Kernel Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct Interpretation
================================================================

The Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct is a general document meant to
provide a set of rules for almost any open source community. Every
open-source community is unique and the Linux kernel is no exception.
Because of this, this document describes how we in the Linux kernel
community will interpret it. We also do not expect this interpretation
to be static over time, and will adjust it as needed.

The Linux kernel development effort is a very personal process compared
to "traditional" ways of developing software. Your contributions and
ideas behind them will be carefully reviewed, often resulting in
critique and criticism. The review will almost always require
improvements before the material can be included in the
kernel. Know that this happens because everyone involved wants to see
the best possible solution for the overall success of Linux. This
development process has been proven to create the most robust operating
system kernel ever, and we do not want to do anything to cause the
quality of submission and eventual result to ever decrease.

Maintainers
-----------

The Code of Conduct uses the term "maintainers" numerous times. In the
kernel community, a "maintainer" is anyone who is responsible for a
subsystem, driver, or file, and is listed in the MAINTAINERS file in the
kernel source tree.

Responsibilities
----------------

The Code of Conduct mentions rights and responsibilities for
maintainers, and this needs some further clarifications.

First and foremost, it is a reasonable expectation to have maintainers
lead by example.

That being said, our community is vast and broad, and there is no new
requirement for maintainers to unilaterally handle how other people
behave in the parts of the community where they are active. That
responsibility is upon all of us, and ultimately the Code of Conduct
documents final escalation paths in case of unresolved concerns
regarding conduct issues.

Maintainers should be willing to help when problems occur, and work with
others in the community when needed. Do not be afraid to reach out to
the TAB or other maintainers if you're uncertain how to handle
situations that come up. It will not be considered a violation report
unless you want it to be. If you are uncertain about approaching the
TAB or any other maintainers, please reach out to our conflict mediator,
Mishi Choudhary <[email protected]>.

In the end, "be kind to each other" is really what the end goal is for
everybody. We know everyone is human and we all fail at times, but the
primary goal for all of us should be to work toward amicable resolutions
of problems. Enforcement of the code of conduct will only be a last
resort option.

Our goal of creating a robust and technically advanced operating system
and the technical complexity involved naturally require expertise and
decision-making.

The required expertise varies depending on the area of contribution. It
is determined mainly by context and technical complexity and only
secondary by the expectations of contributors and maintainers.

Both the expertise expectations and decision-making are subject to
discussion, but at the very end there is a basic necessity to be able to
make decisions in order to make progress. This prerogative is in the
hands of maintainers and project's leadership and is expected to be used
in good faith.

As a consequence, setting expertise expectations, making decisions and
rejecting unsuitable contributions are not viewed as a violation of the
Code of Conduct.

While maintainers are in general welcoming to newcomers, their capacity
of helping contributors overcome the entry hurdles is limited, so they
have to set priorities. This, also, is not to be seen as a violation of
the Code of Conduct. The kernel community is aware of that and provides
entry level programs in various forms like kernelnewbies.org.

Scope
-----

The Linux kernel community primarily interacts on a set of public email
lists distributed around a number of different servers controlled by a
number of different companies or individuals. All of these lists are
defined in the MAINTAINERS file in the kernel source tree. Any emails
sent to those mailing lists are considered covered by the Code of
Conduct.

Developers who use the kernel.org bugzilla, and other subsystem bugzilla
or bug tracking tools should follow the guidelines of the Code of
Conduct. The Linux kernel community does not have an "official" project
email address, or "official" social media address. Any activity
performed using a kernel.org email account must follow the Code of
Conduct as published for kernel.org, just as any individual using a
corporate email account must follow the specific rules of that
corporation.

The Code of Conduct does not prohibit continuing to include names, email
addresses, and associated comments in mailing list messages, kernel
change log messages, or code comments.

Interaction in other forums is covered by whatever rules apply to said
forums and is in general not covered by the Code of Conduct. Exceptions
may be considered for extreme circumstances.

Contributions submitted for the kernel should use appropriate language.
Content that already exists predating the Code of Conduct will not be
addressed now as a violation. Inappropriate language can be seen as a
bug, though; such bugs will be fixed more quickly if any interested
parties submit patches to that effect. Expressions that are currently
part of the user/kernel API, or reflect terminology used in published
standards or specifications, are not considered bugs.

Enforcement
-----------

The address listed in the Code of Conduct goes to the Code of Conduct
Committee. The exact members receiving these emails at any given time
are listed at <URL>. Members can not access reports made before they
joined or after they have left the committee.

The initial Code of Conduct Committee consists of volunteer members of
the Technical Advisory Board (TAB), as well as a professional mediator
acting as a neutral third party. The first task of the committee is to
establish documented processes, which will be made public.

Any member of the committee, including the mediator, can be contacted
directly if a reporter does not wish to include the full committee in a
complaint or concern.

The Code of Conduct Committee reviews the cases according to the
processes (see above) and consults with the TAB as needed and
appropriate, for instance to request and receive information about the
kernel community.

Any decisions by the committee 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.

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.

We expect to establish a different process for Code of Conduct Committee
staffing beyond the bootstrap period. This document will be updated
with that information when this occurs.
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions Documentation/process/index.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ Below are the essential guides that every developer should read.

howto
code-of-conduct
code-of-conduct-interpretation
development-process
submitting-patches
coding-style
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 79dbeed

Please sign in to comment.