linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document

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: <62b70ccb-9484-7842-e57a-9697946636c3@infradead.org>
Date:   Sun, 21 Oct 2018 15:37:58 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Mishi Choudhary <mishi@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct:
 Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document

On 10/21/18 3:33 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 08:20 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 20 2018, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> As everyone knows by now, we added a new Code of Conduct to the kernel
>>> tree a few weeks ago.
>>
>> I wanted to stay detached from all this, but as remaining (publicly)
>> silent might be seen (publicly) as acquiescing, I hereby declare that:
>>    I reject, as illegitimate, this Code and the process by
>>    which it is being "developed".
> []
>> I call on any other community members who reject this process to say so,
>> not to remain silent.
> 
> The concept of describing a desire for pleasant interactions
> while
> developing the linux kernel is legitimate and useful.

Agree.

> I do reject this process as well and I think the attempt to
> reform it via a private, non-public method is, at best,
> poor form.

and Agree.

> Joe Perches

Thanks.

-- 
~Randy