On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
Jarkko Sakkinen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
the responsibility part here means.

I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.

Is this wrong interpretation?  Should I conclude that I made a mistake
by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.

Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst?
As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should
be interpreted here.

Ugh, was not aware that there two documents.

Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged to
single common sense code of conduct?

/Jarkko