diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b144417
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
@@ -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 <mishi@linux.com>.
+
+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.
diff --git a/Documentation/process/index.rst b/Documentation/process/index.rst
index 9ae3e31..42691e2 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/index.rst
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
 
    howto
    code-of-conduct
+   code-of-conduct-interpretation
    development-process
    submitting-patches
    coding-style