linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion

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:   Mon, 8 Oct 2018 12:04:36 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:     Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the
 enforcement paragraph pending community discussion

On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:15:25PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2018, at 17:37, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Significant concern has been expressed about the responsibilities
> > outlined in
> > the enforcement clause of the new code of conduct.  Since there is
> > concern
> > that this becomes binding on the release of the 4.19 kernel, strip the
> > enforcement clauses to give the community time to consider and debate
> > how this
> > should be handled.
> 
> Even in the places where I don't agree with the discussion about what our
> code of conduct should be, I love that we're having it.  Removing the
> enforcement clause basically goes back to the way things were.  We'd be
> recognizing that we know issues happen, and explicitly stating that when
> serious events do happen, the community as a whole isn't committing to
> helping.
> 
> It's true there are a lot of questions about how the community resolves
> problems and holds each other accountable for maintaining any code of
> conduct.  I think the enforcement section leaves us the room we need to
> continue discussions and still make it clear that we're making an effort to
> shift away from the harsh discussions in the past.

Emphatically seconded.

I absolutely agree that we should to work on the enforcement section
over time; for instance, I agree that a dedicated team (ideally with
some training) would be better than vesting this in a technical
decision-making body.

But I agree with Chris that we should not remove this entirely. And I
don't think there's any special significance to this being in the 4.19
release as compared to an -rc or git HEAD.