linux-kernel - Re: 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: <877ei56579.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Fri, 26 Oct 2018 09:18:18 +1100
From:   NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>
To:     Rainer Fiebig <jrf@...lbox.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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: Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document

On Thu, Oct 25 2018, Rainer Fiebig wrote:

> Am Montag, 22. Oktober 2018, 08:20:11 schrieb NeilBrown:
>> On Sat, Oct 20 2018, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > 
>> > 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".
>> 
>> It is clear from the surrounding discussions that this is well outside our
>> core competencies.  It will be flawed, it isn't what we need.
>> 
>> I call on any other community members who reject this process to say so,
>> not to remain silent.
>> #Iobject
>> 
>> We don't need a "Code of Conduct" nearly as much as we need "Leadership
>> in conduct".  Without the leadership, any code looks like a joke.
>> 
> [...]
>  
>> I call on you, Greg:
>>  - to abandon this divisive attempt to impose a "Code of Conduct"
>>  - to revert 8a104f8b5867c68
>
> Yes but this seems increasingly unlikely now. However, there may be an 
> alternative.
>
> Jugding by the release-message for 4.19, some people here are fans of 
> Monty Python's. No wonder - as those guys are famous for being unrelenting 
> supporters of Political Correctness.
>
> So one would be on the safe side if one just supplemented "Our Pledge" 
> with this:
>
> 	"Everybody has the right to be offended."
>
> I think, John Cleese would also welcome this.[1]
>
> What do you think?

I do think that giving certain rights to the community is a good thing:
- the right to tell anyone that their speech is hurtful
- the right to (patch) review by a third party.

I don't think the right to be offended really needs to be given.
Yes, I know it is a joke and I do like Monty Python.  I just don't think
it is particular helpful in this context. Maybe I missed something.
For myself, I relinquish my right to be offended.  I just don't do it.
It doesn't seem to be worth the effort.

Thanks,
NeilBrown


>
> Regards!
>
>
> Rainer Fiebig
>
>
>
> [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3427218/Political-correctness-killing-comedy-says-John-Cleese-Monty-Python-star-believes-fear-offending-certain-groups-lead-1984-style-society-free-expression-not-allowed.html
>
>
> -- 
> The truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought.
> Richard Feynman

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)