netdev - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CpPiTF0xZwq_zhrYVO2pCA9TxAmJi_zwVBmyl9Z1RHKCjgf332fcmsc86C_1CMaZPNLlIDcvqOIWa1vR2lr2qMaZpcyIisxLqL1IVvq9ZNQ=@proton.me>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:55:51 +0000
From: jisralbasha <jisralbasha@...ton.me>
To: "patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc: "linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "ntb@...ts.linux.dev" <ntb@...ts.linux.dev>, "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "wangyuli@...ontech.com" <wangyuli@...ontech.com>, "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements

Dear Greg and other LF members,

I'm writing to express my serious concerns about the recent removal of entries from the MAINTAINERS file without proper explanation. While I understand the statement cited "various compliance requirements," this vague justification is deeply troubling.

Blindly complying with demands for obscure changes sets a dangerous precedent. What happens next time? Will we see further removals, modifications, or even additions driven by external pressures rather than the best interests of the project and its community?

This incident raises fundamental questions about the autonomy and integrity of our open-source project.  Should we be at the mercy of unspecified "compliance requirements" that could potentially lead to harmful actions, such as:

"Update some entries due to various compliance requirements." (and explode some Russian laptops like pagers in Lebanon, or disable all intel processors in sanctioned countries).

I strongly urge the LF to reconsider this approach and prioritize transparency and community engagement in all decision-making processes. This includes providing detailed explanations for any future changes to critical project files like MAINTAINERS. Additionally, we should explore strategies to mitigate external pressures and ensure the long-term health and independence of our project.

P.S. Keep communications public