linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation/CoC: spell out enforcement for unacceptable behaviors

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: <d9bcf2df-8201-4eea-8e98-d305a4671736@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:45:22 -0700
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Dan Williams
 <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/CoC: spell out enforcement for unacceptable
 behaviors

On 11/12/24 07:43, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 02:50:45PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 11/11/24 13:07, Simona Vetter wrote:
> 
>>> Personal take, but I think a forced public apology as the primary or at
>>> least initial coc enforcement approach is one of the worst.
> 
> ...
> 
>> This document isn't intended to be a complete summary of all actions the
>> CoC takes in response to reports. There is a lot of back and forth with
>> the individuals to bring about change before the CoC asks for an apology.
> 
> I guess it would be good to explicitly call out (possibly in an
> incremental change on top of this one) that the specific enforcement
> steps here are examples, and are mainly for cases where a more
> mediation/education based approach fails or extreme cases where they're
> inappropriate?  Neither the existing document nor the current change
> make that explicit (at least to my reading), it's clear from for example
> the reports that are sent that the existing practice is to try to use
> those approaches first but I'm not sure that people would realise that
> from this document alone.

Thank you Mark. I will add more content to the document distilling the
discussion on this thread in the interest of transparency.

thanks,
-- Shuah