linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2dafc0bb-4dee-4c7e-91b0-01fa66a822aa@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:01:34 -0700
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 rdunlap@...radead.org, daniel@...ll.ch, laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com,
 broonie@...nel.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>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
 Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/CoC: spell out enforcement for
 unacceptable behaviors

On 11/14/24 07:38, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 04:25:57PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> +The scope of the ban for a period of time could include:
>> +
>> +    a. denying patch contributions and pull requests
>> +    b. pausing collaboration with the violator by ignoring their
>> +       contributions and/or blocking their email account(s)
>> +    c. blocking their access to kernel.org accounts and mailing lists
> 
> Can we change this to:
> 
>      c. restricting their ability to communicate via kernel.org platforms,
>         such as mailing lists and social media sites
> 
> It makes more sense to phrase it this way, because it's really the
> communication that is the focus of this policy, not general access like git,
> patchwork, etc.
> 

Thank you Konstantin. Correct. The intent is to restrict communication.
The way you phrased it makes perfect sense. I will make the change.

thanks,
-- Shuah