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: <be343ff93c03fd40b524ae6fdc34448dc947ad82.camel@hammerspace.com>
Date:   Sat, 20 Oct 2018 20:07:23 +0000
From:   Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>
To:     "gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Tim.Bird@...y.com" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
CC:     "mishi@...ux.com" <mishi@...ux.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the  contact
 email address

On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:24 +0000, Tim.Bird@...y.com wrote:

> The scope of the code of conduct basically means that it covers
> online interactions (communication via mailing list, git commits
> and Bugzilla).  Not to be flippant, but those are hardly mediums
> that are susceptible to executing physical abuse.  Also, they are
> all mediums that leave a persistent, public trail.  So I don't think
> the
> comparison is very apt here.
>  -- Tim

If that is the case, then why does this need to go into the Linux
kernel in the first place? The mailing lists, the kernel.org git
repository, and bugzilla presumably all have "terms of use" pages that
could specify the expected behaviour very explicitly, and could specify
how arbitration works as part of those terms of use (and if enforcement
is required, then it could specify legal venues etc).

IOW: if the scope is just communication online, then I would think
there are better tools for that.

Putting a code of conduct into the kernel code itself wants to be
justified by more than just regulating online behaviour.

-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@...merspace.com


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ