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]

Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:14:22 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ec429@...tab.net>
To:     Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.

On 20/09/18 02:16, Olof Johansson wrote:
> I would be very surprised if any of my peers on the TAB ever had those
> intentions, and I know I would not have them myself.
In case my references to individualsmade it unclear: I have no reason to
 suspect _any_ of the present TAB members would; everything I know about
 them points to them being good, honest and principled people.

> I can
> see how that kind of environment _could_ be implemented with the same
> code of conduct as a base, but [...] I know I
> would fight strongly against that.
It is definitely reassuring to hear you say that.

> There is a list in the first paragraph, but the preceding words say
> that it should be a *harassment-free experience for everyone*. That
> part of the paragraph is to me the most important part.
It certainly _should_ be the most important; IMHO the sentence should end
 after 'everyone'.

> Your above argument that the Code of Conduct is problematic because of
> who wrote it seems to contradict your statement that we shall judge by
> code (or text) alone.
I think there are important differences between code to be run by CPUs
 and a Code to be run by humans.  And when the author goes on a victory
 lap on Twitter and declares the Code to be "a political document", is
 it any surprise I'm worried?

Applying extra scrutiny to a political document written by someone with a
 history ofstirring up political antagonism is like checking the locking
 extra-carefully in a patch from a developer who has a history of letting
 locking bugs slip through.