linux-kernel - 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]

Date:   Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:36:14 -0400
From:   "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@...rsus.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Mishi Choudhary <mishi@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an
 interpretation document

Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>:
> This patch series adds this new document to the kernel tree, as well as
> removes a paragraph from the existing Code of Conduct that was
> bothersome to many maintainers.

I think the changes have improved it.

There is still a process issue with how this code was promulgated that
is clearly bothering a lot of people, but I hope that problem is well
enough understood that we don't need to rehash it.  More transparency,
more consultation, and more notice of intent to revise would help
head off future problems.

I do have one content recommendation.  In the version at

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst

which I presume is current, I see a paragraph that reads as follows:

>In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as
>contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and
>our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body
>size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and
>expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality,
>personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

I recommend that all the text from "everyone" on be struck as (a) unnecessary,
and (b) tending to embroil the project in politico-cultural wars that can do
it no good - and replaced by "every individual".

That is, the result would read:

>In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as
>contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and
>our community a harassment-free experience for every individual.

That is all that needs to be said. Listing all those specific
categories of "regardless of" implicitly privileges certain kinds of
identity (those listed) and disfavors others (those not listed).
Further, some of the phrases used fo categories are political
shibboleths that unavoidably drag in American presumptions not
appropriate for an international project.

Best to leave the whole mess out and just pledge to treat individuals well.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.