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  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 05:52:47 +0100
From:   Al Viro <>
To:     NeilBrown <>
Cc:     Josh Triplett <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,,
        Mishi Choudhary <>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of
 Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 03:25:08PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:

> >> If Linus is not true to his new-found sensitivity, we might need someone
> >> (Greg?) to be a co-maintainer, able to accept patches when Linus has a
> >> relapse.  It might be good form to create this channel anyway, but I
> >> doubt it would be needed in practice.
> >> 
> >> So there you have it. The "Code" is upside down.
> >> We need documents which:
> >>   - curtail the power of the strong, starting with Linus
> >>   - are adopted willingly by individuals, not imposed on the community.
> >>   - provide alternate routes for patch-flow, so that no-one has ultimate
> >>     power.
> >
> > Really?  The ultimate power being to say "No" to a patch, and nobody should
> > have such?  Are you fucking serious?
> I have noticed of late a tendency in all sorts of different people to
> hear/read a statement from someone they know, interpret it a particular
> way, be surprised about that interpretation, and persist with believing
> that interpretation anyway, rather than realizing that the most likely
> explanation is a communication failure, and asking for clarification.
> The "ultimate power" is the ability to say "no" to a patch, *with no
> opportunity for review*.  Two people together having that ultimate power
> is a totally different thing to one person having it alone.

If that's a clarification, I'm sorry to say that I understand you even less now.
What are you proposing?  Duopoly?  How do you deal with disagreements?  Fork?
Revert wars?

Frankly, CoC as-is is a bloody awful idea wide-open to abuses, but what you
are proposing feels even more incoherent...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists