Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7D40E4F6@ORSMSX107.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1539202053.12644.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <1539202180.12644.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7D40E4F6@ORSMSX107.amr.corp.intel.com>
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:02:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKKK76KRpujbudHQWwtcRHSKEQwBeGMBJf=31WjdCJA4A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 2/3] code-of-conduct: Strip the
 enforcement paragraph pending community discussion
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
>> the enforcement clause of the new code of conduct.  Since there is concern
>> that this becomes binding on the release of the 4.19 kernel
>
> Is there some logic behind that concern? What's magic about the release
> of 4.19?

Greg KH said 4.19 was going to be the next LTS. But, regardless, if we
view bugs in the CoC as "just bugs", then can't we also include their
fixes in -stable? It'll land in 4.19.z just like anything else. I
don't think we need to rush anything into 4.19 -- as so many others
have said: it's in our best interest to take the time to get the CoC
right.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security