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]

Message-ID: <ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF80517411@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:51:12 +0000
From:   <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
To:     <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the
 enforcement paragraph pending community discussion



> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bottomley 
> On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@...y.com wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Bottomley
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley
> > > <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 ---------------
> > >  1 file changed, 15 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ 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.
> > >
> > > -Enforcement
> > > -===========
> > > -
> > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable
> > > behavior may be
> > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at
> > > -<tab@...ts.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed
> > > and
> > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed
> > > necessary and
> > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain
> > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an
> > > incident.  Further details of
> > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
> >
> > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't speak to
> > enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting instructions,
> > with an assurance of confidentiality.  This seems to me not to be
> > the objectionable part of this section.
> > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch).
> 
> So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both paragraphs
> removed, the current CoC is very similar to the status quo: namely
> every subsystem handles their own issues and that's formalised by the
> "Our Responsibilities" section.  That also makes me think that whether
> we want a centralised channel of reporting or enforcement and what it
> should be also ought to be part of the debate.  The TAB was created to
> channel community technical input into the Linux Foundation.  That's
> not to say it can't provide the reporting and arbitration structure,
> but if we're going to do it right we should debate the expansion of its
> duties (and powers).

When the Code of Conflict was adopted 3 years ago, we already created
the central reporting mechanism, so I actually think leaving (ie including) the above
paragraph is closer to the status quo.  I think it's the expanded powers and
duties (or perception thereof) that are causing concern and I think debating
those to clarify intent, and adopting changes as needed  to ameliorate concerns
is worthwhile.

I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the TAB will end up
performing a mediator role to smooth hurt feelings and remind and encourage
improved communication - very similar to what we've done in the past.  I really
believe that bans will continue to be very few and far between, as they have
been historically (I can only think of 3 in the past decade.)
 -- Tim