From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A7571D799D; Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.145 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729948695; cv=none; b=f6SdgdDZto1RAYWHhCY+f8JEiWX3/6ef19xc66MkrDYeB1C20SFiTsuABVFHagdpVRQDxB9cOHw4mo3F/0U+ShT3rsReyiZVDZHibO7MeLvsx8E9KxvPBim4pAR9aCQUgjHWKLibd0p/eROMMwxZjF5hakKH+vLNARhudd7UeMk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729948695; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HJRwHJXbUEBjIDmmNwTu1z2WrrERb9aEwOG4fNinBg4=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Subject:Content-Type; b=o6BTIIMmfV/n83L9OnMysMI8kI7orTIrK+ShvmU1m602p/KH/tGOSIEV9/TpMLi3pb7I76E7HMS8IMv17BVEKSs86wHsKChkjORfV7F9PCfO/1UoIb1anyI4Decls2qDSAJ927xjeoozAitgMjHoaZb9C9G+0s8YeJp8UAjTIjA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=flygoat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flygoat.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=flygoat.com header.i=@flygoat.com header.b=VO/Vx1aB; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=jKlnaP1F; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.145 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=flygoat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flygoat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=flygoat.com header.i=@flygoat.com header.b="VO/Vx1aB"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="jKlnaP1F" Received: from phl-compute-09.internal (phl-compute-09.phl.internal [10.202.2.49]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D078511400C4; Sat, 26 Oct 2024 09:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-imap-12 ([10.202.2.86]) by phl-compute-09.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 26 Oct 2024 09:18:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=flygoat.com; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1729948691; x=1730035091; bh=HJRwHJXbUEBjIDmmNwTu1z2WrrERb9aEwOG4fNinBg4=; b= VO/Vx1aBfiT/v8bZD/g2X7xzvXLfv709PN/3DxozuX/d3oF6kz4iUFnlx3uRxTW5 WkoHiM5ZA9mlNRkGfFEQL+i7oSWBILpbmghYquwa8ZMaButIXSwWBJl2BZl0eOPw vo2ndMEtgfIRkdUYvxBFPoSNga8ZQ8y++8NpO0ySpW5OwG7yK8i984fd2QMBYvE6 D0Rr2glty3He9xXihwqzVN2FKSABfsvDVmtnA4x3pnoNn3/amCuyToYFcbDQBS3c 2mv6uPcyGDmkEfkpFO7SiYU+UgVCypSPc26osEMMF6QRZ7I6OMEzc9M292EAXRMN Or9xM8UKiJ146hR29Za8Zg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1729948691; x= 1730035091; bh=HJRwHJXbUEBjIDmmNwTu1z2WrrERb9aEwOG4fNinBg4=; b=j KlnaP1FcCS3bxQUdFEsyV89OWm/CiUffBJ2Pj3Fx4JIzb8TH6JUlYxLEA9K1P5dH K80oOMd1fwEl+u6rlpGXI0Ira2qUDMeTRCpgQ4Ha83Euco/tRadVCsXflbYkqqAq DUQc5XOQ0n9T14Jj6raDXUmDeP0rBU8uQPWOeipMHmGvmVRBr6F4Ncn3uhd9UqSt 1aIVhMhf4Qo8y9ZpdUCCkazBsYtz8hwoRjixx+hVjjKIAHydelj2xpdqp6F2jI6W +kAARXrlPjgovm3W9/cLo02AQo6JOrn8Jotqndk1EkMGPIy7rkq4za4TFPd9NPyk KoT4VWxj0aVyYrUDH7dxg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrvdejgedgieefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepofggfffhvfevkfgjfhfutgfgsehtqhertdertdej necuhfhrohhmpedflfhirgiguhhnucgjrghnghdfuceojhhirgiguhhnrdihrghnghesfh hlhihgohgrthdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjeehfeduvddtgffgvdffkeet hefhlefgvdevvdekuefffeekheehgeevhfevteejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd enucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepjhhirgiguhhnrdihrghnghesfhhlhihgohgr thdrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepudefpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtph htthhopegtohhnughutghtsehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopegtvhgvsehk vghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehkrhiikheskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtg hpthhtoheplhgvvgeskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepshgrshhhrghlsehk vghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehsvggtuhhrihhthieskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorh hgpdhrtghpthhtohepshhhuhgrhheskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepthho rhhvrghlughssehlihhnuhigqdhfohhunhgurghtihhonhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhope hgrhgvghhkhheslhhinhhugihfohhunhgurghtihhonhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ifd894703:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.phl.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 46CC81C20066; Sat, 26 Oct 2024 09:18:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:16:47 +0100 From: "Jiaxun Yang" To: "Krzysztof Kozlowski" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, conduct@kernel.org, security@kernel.org, cve@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, "stable@vger.kernel.org" Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" , shuah@kernel.org, lee@kernel.org, sashal@kernel.org, "Jonathan Corbet" Message-Id: <9b9c034b-19b1-4f02-b7fc-3152526c82c4@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <73b8017b-fce9-4cb1-be48-fc8085f1c276@app.fastmail.com> Subject: Re: Concerns over transparency of informal kernel groups Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =E5=9C=A82024=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8826=E6=97=A5=E5=8D=81=E6=9C=88 =E4=B8=8B= =E5=8D=8812:05=EF=BC=8CKrzysztof Kozlowski=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > Oh, spread more FUD under the cloak of helping the community. Reminds = me > something, wait, how was it? zx? I drafted this email with good will. While I appreciate any constructive comments, this kind of unfair accusa= tion is unacceptable. I'm not demanding anyone to take action, I'm just trying to be helpful. > >> about those informal groups. With the exception of the Linux kernel h= ardware security >> team, it seems none of these groups maintain a public list of members= that I can >> easily find. >>=20 >> Upon digging into the details, I=E2=80=99d like to raise a few concer= ns and offer some thoughts >> for further discussion: >>=20 >> - Absence of a Membership Register >> Our community is built on mutual trust. Without knowing who comprises= these groups, >> it's understandably difficult for people to have full confidence in t= heir work. > > No, you might have difficulty, not "all people" which you imply. Please > stop creating sentences like you are speaking for others. You do not > speak for others. I never said "all" here, and just to quote: "I am expressing the views of a number of people I talked to but it's no= t fair of me to name them." The same applies to this email as well. I actually did a private RFC bef= ore sending it. Many people are unable to speak up here due to company affiliation and o= ther concerns. > >> A publicly available membership list would not only foster trust but = also allow us to >> address our recognition and appreciation. > > Nope. For some of the groups it is very intentional to hide the > membership. It was explained already why and should be pretty obvious. I might be dumb in this case, do you mind giving me a pointer to the exp= lanation? I can draft patch to make it clear in documents. > [...] > >>=20 >> - No Conflict of Interest Policy >> Particularly in the case of the Code of Conduct Committee, there may = arise situations >> where individuals face challenging decisions involving personal conne= ctions. A conflict >> of interest policy would provide valuable guidance in such circumstan= ces. > > Feel free to propose patches instead of claiming there is problem for > others. If you identify issue, propose a patch. Thanks, I will. I'm just aiming to gather some feedback before proposing= patches. I also welcome patches from those more qualified than myself. > > Several other your replies earlier were in similar tone. I am not going > to engage in such discussions and probably neither other people, but > some think that silence is approval or agreement. Thus this reply. for > me this is just FUD. Again, I must decline to accept this sort of unfair accusation. It's indeed not the tone I'm usually speaking on the mailing list. It ou= ght to be more straightforward for technical communications. However, in the= se particularly challenging times, I'm striving to maintain a humble and re= spectful tone whilst ensuring my views are clearly spoken. I'd be grateful for co= mments expressing any dissatisfaction with my approach, but I feel that persona= l attack ultimately do nothing constructive. Thanks. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof --=20 - Jiaxun