linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] code of conduct fixes

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:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:23:24 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:     ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] code of conduct fixes

James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> writes:

> Resend to show accumulated tags and also to add a third patch listing
> the TAB as the reporting point as a few people seem to want.  If it
> gets the same level of support, I'll send it in with the other two.

There is also:

> Our Responsibilities
> ====================
> 
> Maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior
> and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to
> any instances of unacceptable behavior.
> 
> Maintainers have the right and responsibility to 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,
> offensive, or harmful.

Which is very problematic.
a) In append only logs like git we can not edit history.
   Making it a mainters responsibility to edit the history, to do the
   impossible is a problem.

b) There are no responsibilities of for people who are not Maintainers.
   That is another problem.

c) The entire tone of the reponsibilities section is out of line with a
   community where there are no enforcement powers only the power to
   accept or not accept a patch.  Only the power to persuade not to
   enforce.

Overall in the discussions I have heard people talking about persuading,
educating, and not feeding trolls.   Nowhere have I heard people talking
about policing the community which I understand that responsiblity
section to be talking about.

Increasingly I am getting the feeling that this document does not the
linux development community.  Perhaps a revert and trying to come up
with better language from scratch would be better.

I don't know how to rephrase that reponsibility section but if we don't
go with the revert something looks like it need sot be done there.

Eric