linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors

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: <20181017152101.GA17531@localhost>
Date:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:21:02 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        tomi.valkeinen@....fi
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list
 of discrimination factors

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:31:35AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Josh,
> 
> Thanks for your comments!
> 
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:13 AM Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:19:01AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Providing an explicit list of discrimination factors may give the false
> > > impression that discrimination based on other unlisted factors would be
> > > allowed.
> >
> > This impression is, in fact, false, as has already been discussed
> > elsewhere. I had hoped that discussion would suffice.
> 
> The CoC FAQ is not part of the CoC, and not part of the Linux kernel.

I wasn't referring just to that; I'm referring to the discussion we've
already had on this exact point.

> > refers to. Listing explicit cases to cover does not imply other cases
> > are not covered;
> 
> It does, if not accompanied by "examples of...", like in the other sections.

"for everyone, regardless of ..." still says "for everyone", making the
"regardless of ..." inherently a non-exhaustive list of factors.

> > it does, however, ensure that the listed cases *are*,
> > and helps people know that they're covered.
> 
> So you agree people cannot know if the unlisted cases are covered or not?

People in underrepresented and commonly marginalized groups, especially
those more commonly overlooked, don't always know if a given group has
taken their particular group into account or given any thought to it.
Explicit inclusion helps, and this is a standard guideline often cited
for good codes of conduct.

That doesn't make other groups *not* covered. But *if* there is a
particular commonly marginalized group that you feel this should
*explicitly* cover and doesn't, I'd suggest *adding* that group rather
than deleting the existing effort to be explicitly inclusive. (And
again, I'd suggest doing so upstream first.)

> > This patch is not OK, and defeats one of the purposes of the original
> > change.
> 
> So the purpose of the original change was to list a number of factors,
> without saying that it was just a list of examples?

You seem to be actively trying to read something more into what I said.
One of the key purposes of the original change was to make the kernel a
"a welcoming environment to participate in", and to provide "explicit
guidelines".