Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:09:48 +0100 Alan Cox <gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> escreveu:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:19:17 -0300 > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+sams...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:53:08 +0100 > > Alan Cox <gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> escreveu: > > > > > > -Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or > > > > reject > > > > +Maintainers may remove, edit, or reject > > > > comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions > > > > that are > > > > not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or > > > > permanently any > > > > contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, > > > > threatening, > > > > > > > > The previous text seems too much legal for my taste. > > > > > > > > > > That is just as confusing. Maintainers have the right to remove, edit, > > > reject commits that *are* aligned with the code as well. > > > > Good point. Yeah, a maintainer can do whatever he thinks it is > > appropriate for a patch - even when it follows the CoC. > > > > > So what exactly is the point here ? > > > > The point is "responsibility" - that sounds like it is bounding a legal > > duty to a maintainer. > > If you remove the responsibility aspect you might as well remove the > entire clause. It doesn't say anything as it's simply a subset of what > maintainers do anyway. > > So how about > > "Maintainers should remove, edit or reject..." > > that keeps the sense that there should be pressure against abusive > behaviour. Works for me. > except of course someone will attach a zero day exploit and fix to a > coc-violating rant and then you are a bit stuffed 8) :-) Thanks, Mauro
