linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors

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: <20181203121519.GA7478@amd>
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 13:15:19 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@....fi>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of
 discrimination factors

On Mon 2018-12-03 12:05:06, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Providing an explicit list of discrimination factors may give the false
> > impression that discrimination based on other unlisted factors would be
> > allowed.
> > 
> > Furthermore, this list is already overly long, polarizing,
> > politically-laden, and reinstating the concept of human races.
> > None of these is related to the goals of the Linux kernel project.
> > 
> > Avoid any ambiguity or political undertone by removing the list, to
> > ensure "a harassment-free experience for everyone", period.
> 
> I understand the reason you and others are proposing this change,
> however for now, let us stick with the text that we have.  As Linus and
> I said just over a month ago, let's sit with the text we have until
> something comes up that requires a change to happen.
> 
> Also, I recommend you work with the upstream developers of this text to
> see if they agree with your changes here.  If they do, and update their
> version, I will be glad to revisit this text at that time.

> But everyone, please note that there are very specific reasons for
> listing things like this.  You might not agree with those reasons,

So what are the reasons?

You marked yourself as a maintainer (and I do not think community
agreement exists that you should be maintaining this), yet you refuse
to take changes, pointing that there's "upstream".

> many other people do so each "camp" can not be happy in the end.  As we
> did have 3 years without such a list of factors, perhaps it is time to
> have 3 years with the list to provide a fair balance. :)

What kind of argumentation faul is this?
Aha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation 

> So I'm not going to accept this patch at this point in time, sorry.

Linus, I don't think Greg is doing good job maintaining this. Can you
take the patch? (Or explain what is going on here, because I don't
think public has full story).

Thanks,

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)