linux-kernel - Re: Linux 4.19-rc4 released, an apology, and a maintainership note

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 18 Sep 2018 03:10:35 +0100
From:   Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@...l.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clm@...com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, corbet@....net,
        olof@...m.net, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 4.19-rc4 released, an apology, and a maintainership note

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8a104f8b5867c682d994ffa7a74093c54469c11f

ahh, guys?  ah... i'm going to try *really* hard to follow the advice
that's listed here ok?
http://www.pndc.com/documents/_PDF%20Text-PNDC%20WORKS.pdf  it's a
little challenging to do so in email, as it's specifically designed
(page 6) for face-to-face conversations.

 following point (1) on page 6, i believe that the question i should
be asking is best phrased as follows:

 * what was the intent behind the change to a "code of conduct"?

 following point (4) on page 7, a second question i believe should be
phrased as follows:

 * whilst the "positive" list of behaviours look good on first glance,
we've witnessed what happened with freebsd when they adopted a "code
of conduct": would a (public) reasonable and rational discussion with
a view to removing the "proscribed" list of negative behaviours be
welcome? [1]

l.

[1] it's a little more complex than that, you get the general idea.