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: <20181203141711.GA19551@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 15:17:11 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, acme@...nel.org,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@....fi>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of
 discrimination factors

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 12:53:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:05 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> 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.
> 
> I did, cfr. https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/610
> 
> The official response was:
> 
>    "I'm not going to make this change to the Contributor Covenant itself,
>     since I believe that explicitly listing examples of protected classes is
>     important. However, any adopting project is free to modify the document
>     according to the license."

I figured.  As I said, some people feel that the list is good to have,
if not essential.  So let's stick with it for now.

thanks,

greg k-h