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]

Date:   Sat, 27 Oct 2018 09:40:13 +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 Fri, Oct 26 2018, Rainer Fiebig wrote:

> NeilBrown schrieb:
>> 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.
>
> Of course it's a joke and iirc it was indeed John Cleese who made it. But he
> made it for a reason, out of concern. It has a serious core.
>
> The question is: what *is* helpful in this matter?
>
> Just saying "this is not helpful" isn't helpful either. It's a well-known
> killer-phrase that has been used ad nauseam in this discussion. But an
> alternative is never given. And thus it's just an other way of saying
> "Eat it. And shut tf up!"

You asked me what I thought, and I told you what I thought.
If you think differently, you are quite welcome tell us - to explain the
way in which you think the addition would be helpful.

>
> Not even *constructive* criticism is helpful. AFAIK I'm the only one here who
> came up with a *complete* alternative - ignored. Others provided patches for
> certain sections - ignored. Data that indicate that this may be detrimental to
> Linux - ignored. Almost anything that was provided by me or others - ignored.

From my perspective, providing a complete alternative is no better than
what Greg did - provided a "complete" "code of conduct".

Engage in discussion, present your case, make me *want* to read your
document because you've shown me how it relates to me.

>
> What kind of community or attitude is this? This feels more like "The Wall" or
> North Korea than an Open-Source-project.
>
> And what beat everything was to misuse famously politically *in*correct Monty
> Python to malign criticism of this Political-Correctness-monster. The
> "People's Front" - message will forever be a prominent exhibit in "Monty
> Python's Hall of Shame". And the author should be banned from laughing about
> MP-sketches until he recants. Perhaps one should also report this incident to
> the "Ministry of Silly CoCs". ;)
>
>> For myself, I relinquish my right to be offended.  I just don't do it.
>> It doesn't seem to be worth the effort.
>
> I don't. John Cleese is a smart guy. And he has a point.
>
>
> OK, thanks for your reply! But I think it's time for me to move on. "Cut your
> losses", as they say.
>

Thanks for participating!

NeilBrown

>
> Good luck and regards!
>
> Rainer Fiebig

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