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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:57:19 +0200
From:   Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To:     Andreas Bosch <progandy@...ch-fellbach.de>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...m.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:31:26PM +0200, Andreas Bosch wrote:
> Am 18.09.18 um 22:16 schrieb Lukas Wunner:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 02:24:30PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:48:52PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:22:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>>> +Scope
> >>>> +=====
> >>>> +
> >>>> +This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
> >>>> +spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.
> >>>> +Examples of representing a project or community include using an
> >>>> +official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media
> >>>> +account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or
> >>>> +offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and
> >>>> +clarified by project maintainers.
> >>> 
> >>> Seriously though, I read this to know what I need to be aware of but oddly
> >>> the language of this paragraph says it doesn't apply to me:  I'm not using
> >>> an official project e-mail address nor an official social media account,
> >>> nor has anyone appointed me as representative.  I can live with that, I'm
> >>> just wondering what the benefit of a document is that only seems to apply
> >>> to a tiny fraction of the community.
> >> 
> >> I do not think you are reading the document correctly.  As an example,
> >> it should cover any emails sent to this list.  That is not a "tiny
> >> fraction" by my last count :)
> 
> The document applies if you attach the representation qualifier only to
> the public spaces. The chosen language seems problematic since the scope
> of the qualifier is unclear. The two possible readings are: 1) This Code
> of Conduct applies within project spaces. In addition it applies in
> public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its
> community. 2) This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and
> in public spaces. It does only apply when an individual is representing
> the project or its community. The first reading is the expected version
> I think, but this should be clarified. -- Andreas

Thanks, that makes sense.  Indeed I had mentally inserted logical
parentheses like this when parsing the sentence:

    This Code of Conduct applies ( both within project spaces and in public
    spaces ) when an individual is representing the project or its community.

It might be beneficial to disambiguate the sentence, e.g.:

    This Code of Conduct applies within project spaces.  It also applies in
    public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its
    community.

If that is the intended meaning.

Kind regards,

Lukas