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  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:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:07:50 +0100
From:   Josh Triplett <>
To:     Joe Perches <>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        James Bottomley <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [GIT PULL] code of conduct fixes for 4.19-rc8

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 22:10 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 01:15:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > This is the series of patches which has been discussed on both ksummit-
> > > discuss and linux-kernel for the past few weeks.  As Shuah said when
> > > kicking off the process, it's designed as a starting point for the next
> > > phase of the discussion, not as the end point, so it's only really a
> > > set of minor updates to further that goal.
> > > 
> > > The merger of the three patches to show the combined effect is attached
> > > below.  However, Greg recently posted the next phase of the discussion,
> > > so people will be asking what the merger of the series looks like. 
> > > Ignoring the non-CoC documents, I think it looks like this
> > 
> > Sorry for not responding sooner for this, travel and the meeting today
> > took up my time.
> > 
> > Anyway, as we discussed today in the Maintainers summit, let's leave the
> > Code of Conduct text alone for now.  It matches what "upstream" has with
> > the exception of removing that one paragraph.  If you have issues with
> > the wording in it, please work with upstream to fix the issues there as
> > hundreds of other projects will benefit with your changes if they are
> > really needed.
> Given the different development models, that's not
> a very compelling argument.
> As James Bottomley has suggested multiple times,
> I'd much rather kernel development use the debian
> code of conduct verbatim than even this modified one.

The Debian code of conduct doesn't do nearly as good a job of addressing
issues. (Debian also adopted that code of conduct back when such codes
weren't nearly as well understood or established.) Many people *in*
Debian, including supporters of their current CoC, have an interest in
improving it further and/or adopting a more well-established one.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists