diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst | 250 |
1 files changed, 250 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4cdef8360 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst @@ -0,0 +1,250 @@ +.. _code_of_conduct_interpretation: + +Linux Kernel Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct Interpretation +================================================================ + +The :ref:`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 Technical Advisory Board (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, Joanna Lee <jlee@linuxfoundation.org>. + +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 https://kernel.org/code-of-conduct.html. Members can not +access reports made before they joined or after they have left the +committee. + +The Code of Conduct Committee consists of volunteer community members +appointed by the TAB, as well as a professional mediator acting as a +neutral third party. The processes the Code of Conduct committee will +use to address reports is varied and will depend on the individual +circumstance, however, this file serves as documentation for the +general process used. + +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 regarding enforcement recommendations will be brought to +the TAB for implementation of enforcement with the relevant maintainers +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 +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 +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. A majority of the reports the +Code of Conduct Committee receives stem from incorrect understanding regarding +the development process and maintainers' roles, responsibilities, and their +right to make decisions on code acceptance. These are resolved through +clarification of the development process and the scope of the Code of Conduct. + +Unacceptable behaviors could interrupt respectful collaboration for a short +period of time and negatively impact the health of the community longer term. +Unacceptable behaviors often get resolved when individuals acknowledge their +behavior and make amends for it in the setting the violation has taken place. + +The Code of Conduct Committee receives reports about unacceptable behaviors +when they don't get resolved through community discussions. The Code of +Conduct committee takes measures to restore productive and respectful +collaboration when an unacceptable behavior has negatively impacted that +relationship. + +The Code of Conduct Committee has the obligation to keep the reports and +reporters' information private. Reports could come from injured parties +and community members who are observers of unacceptable behaviors. The +Code of Conduct Committee has the responsibility to investigate and resolve +these reports, working with all involved parties. + +The Code of Conduct Committee works with the individual to bring about +change in their understanding of the importance to repair the damage caused +by their behavior to the injured party and the long term negative impact +on the community. + +The goal is to reach a resolution which is agreeable to all parties. If +working with the individual fails to bring about the desired outcome, the +Code of Conduct Committee will evaluate other measures such as seeking +public apology to repair the damage. + +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 + Committee 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. restricting their ability to communicate via kernel.org platforms, + 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 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 +mindful of the longer term harm to the community that could result from +not taking action when such serious public violations occur. + +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. |