linux-kernel - Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.

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]

Message-ID: <20180920030749.GA29741@thunk.org>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:07:49 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:     Edward Cree <ec429@...tab.net>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 02:16:40AM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > But there are too many ways this can go wrong, maybe not now or next
> >  week but in five or ten years, when maybe a different kind of person
> >  is on the TAB, or maybe external pressure is brought to bear on TAB
> >  members.
> 
> One thing to keep in mind is that we all want what is best for Linux,
> to make the best possible kernel. None of this has changed that.
> 
> I personally find it unlikely that relevant pressure could be applied
> on TAB members; I don't find it a prestigious role such that it is
> worth holding on to against my own values or best judgement.

Even *if* pressure could be applied to TAB members, it's important to
remember that the TAB as a body gets its influence and moral authority
from the people who have agreed to serve on it, and not the other way
around.  People join the TAB because they want to serve.  It's not
because being on the TAB grants some kind of mystical power, because
it doesn't.  Ultimately, the "A" in TAB stands for Advisory.

The TAB does not get to control whether patches gets accepted into the
linux-media git tree.  Mauro gets to decide that.  The TAB does not
get to control whether or not Linus accepts pull requests from a
subsystem maintainer; that's up to Linus.  The TAB doesn't run
vger.kernel.org.  That's done by David Miller.

Look at what happened when a particular developer decided to do the
anti-social thing and become a copyright troll.  It was not the TAB
which decided that no further code contributions should be accepted
from that particular person.  It was the Netfilter team.

Linux Maintainers have always had the power to reject patches for any
reason.  It isn't just for technical reasons, as the Netfilter team
demonstrated with the copyright troll.  (Of course, the person whose
patch has been rejected can always appeal to Linus, by sending the
patch directly to Linus.  None of this has changed; it always has been
this way.)

The TAB can make a recommendation, but the decision to act on that
recommendation resides with the Maintainers in general, and
ultimately, Linus.

						- Ted