Jump to content

Linux Dev's threaten to pull killswitch over CoC (somewhat clickbaity title)

Trik'Stari
Message added by colonel_mortis

Please keep in mind that there are lots of different perspectives within our community, and the tech community in general. Just because someone is saying something that you disagree with, does not mean that they are inherently wrong or stupid, just that they are looking at this divisive issue from a different perspective. There are no right or wrong answers to this issue.

 

From our own Community Standards,

Quote
  • Ensure a friendly atmosphere to our visitors and forum members.
  • Encourage the freedom of expression and exchange of information in a mature and responsible manner.
  • "Don't be a dick" - Wil Wheaton.
  • "Be excellent to each other" - Bill and Ted.
  • Remember your audience; both present and future.
22 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I mean developers *can* legally rescind their licenses and use that to effectively blackmail the software using their contributions. But how big of a jackass do you have to be to do that?

 

Both sides of this issue are acting like dumb children. Take out the explicit punishment part of the CoC to make it actually reasonable and stop threatening to destroy a project over something so fucking trivial.

They have been contributing for years for the reward of recognition but get banned because of a toxic ideology. They never got the reward, why should this new face of Linux get their code?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

The outline for preferred status of participants is in the pledge...

It should read something like...

 

 

Compare this CoC with the previous Code of Conflict, what part of the new CoC is not covered by "Be excellent to each other"?  If there is nothing new covered, why did it need a change?

I've asked him a few times why something like the Ruby CoC isn't strictly better than the current one and so far I have not received an answer.

 

 

For those wondering, this is the Ruby CoC:

Quote

This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute to the Ruby community. It applies to all “collaborative space”, which is defined as community communications channels (such as mailing lists, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

  • Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.
  • Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
  • When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should always assume good intentions.
  • Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.

It is so much better, and I would like to hear what objection @Sauron would have to it. I think this is far superior. It covers all the good parts about the current Linux CoC (which is basically "be excellent to each other"), it doesn't have any of the rigid punishments (which are designed to push people who disagree with certain political views out of the group), and it says you need to be tolerant of opposing views, which goes both ways (rather than heavily favoring one side like the current CoC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

The outline for preferred status of participants is in the pledge...

It should read something like...

That makes no difference. At all. They simply make some examples of what doesn't matter. Is this what will destroy Linux?

20 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Compare this CoC with the previous Code of Conflict, what part of the new CoC is not covered by "Be excellent to each other"?  If there is nothing new covered, why did it need a change?

So you're saying it's the same as the old one, yet it's absolutely outrageous and must be changed? I never said the CoC needed to change, but now that it HAS changed I'm at least ok with it. You guys are the ones saying it's intolerable.

 

2 minutes ago, Gdog said:

They have been contributing for years for the reward of recognition but get banned because of a toxic ideology. They never got the reward, why should this new face of Linux get their code?

"This new face of Linux"

 

what are you even talking about? Literally nothing changed except the wording of the CoC. As for not getting the "reward", don't THEY use Linux? The whole idea is that people contribute to make the kernel better for everyone, it's not a competition or a job. If that is your mentality when contributing, then the project is better off without you OR your code - you just don't get to force them to remove it after you wrote it and the rest of the community started building on it.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, LAwLz said:

I've asked him a few times why something like the Ruby CoC isn't strictly better than the current one and so far I have not received an answer.

I thought I made myself clear on this, obviously not - it doesn't matter if the ruby CoC is better. You're saying the Linux CoC is catastrophically bad and it endangers the kernel, I'm saying that's nonsense. I won't be dragged into a completely separate debate about what CoCs are better or worse. I never said you are wrong about this - I said it's irrelevant.

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

it doesn't have any of the rigid punishments (which are designed to push people who disagree with certain political views out of the group), and it says you need to be tolerant of opposing views, which goes both ways (rather than heavily favoring one side like the current CoC).

There are no set punishments in the Linux CoC. That's a false interpretation of written English. As for the "purpose" they were designed for, that's pure propaganda - unless your "political views" include harassment and discrimination, you shouldn't have any problems following the new guidelines. I know you'll quote the author saying it is a political document, and once again I'll repeat that it doesn't matter who wrote it or what they think - the CoC is its own entity and must be judged separately from its author.

 

Please refer me to the part of the CoC that "heavily favours one side" in your opinion. I'm really curious, considering it never says anything about anyone not being included or being considered more important than anyone else. The only thing it does speak against is harassment and general asshattery; is that the side it's "biased" against?

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I thought I made myself clear on this, obviously not - it doesn't matter if the ruby CoC is better. You're saying the Linux CoC is catastrophically bad and it endangers the kernel, I'm saying that's nonsense. I won't be dragged into a completely separate debate about what CoCs are better or worse. I never said you are wrong about this - I said it's irrelevant.

There are no set punishments in the Linux CoC. That's a false interpretation of written English. As for the "purpose" they were designed for, that's pure propaganda - unless your "political views" include harassment and discrimination, you shouldn't have any problems following the new guidelines. I know you'll quote the author saying it is a political document, and once again I'll repeat that it doesn't matter who wrote it or what they think - the CoC is its own entity and must be judged separately from its author.

 

Please refer me to the part of the CoC that "heavily favours one side" in your opinion. I'm really curious, considering it never says anything about anyone not being included or being considered more important than anyone else. The only thing it does speak against is harassment and general asshattery; is that the side it's "biased" against?

I'd sort of be on board with what you are arguing except for the glaring example of Larry Garfield... sorry but this whole CoC reeks of a bad faith and surreptitious play to arm ideological SJW types with power to enforce their ideology in areas it doesn't belong... under the guise of "fairness".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thedude4bides said:

I'd sort of be on board with what you are arguing except for the glaring example of Larry Garfield... sorry but this whole CoC reeks of a bad faith and surreptitious play to arm ideological SJW types with power to enforce their ideology in areas it doesn't belong...

I don't really see how Garfield is in any way connected to this... if you mean the guy I think you do, the whole controversy around him happened back in march and he wasn't a Linux developer (or at least, that's not what he got kicked out of).

 

I think you're being paranoid about supposed "sjw types" with such a strangle hold on power across areas they don't belong... that's mostly propaganda. Sure, there are some crazy "social justice" types but they aren't nearly as many as some loud people would have you believe.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I don't really see how Garfield is in any way connected to this... if you mean the guy I think you do, the whole controversy around him happened back in march and he wasn't a Linux developer (or at least, that's not what he got kicked out of).

 

I think you're being paranoid about supposed "sjw types" with such a strangle hold on power across areas they don't belong... that's mostly propaganda. Sure, there are some crazy "social justice" types but they aren't nearly as many as some loud people would have you believe.

You seem smart enough to connect the dots.  And if you're not, my bad.  

 

Paranoid?  Propaganda?  Don't think so.  There are very real threats from that side, just as there are from the other.  This isn't the place to hash them out but wake up, dude...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thedude4bides said:

You seem smart enough to connect the dots.  And if you're not, my bad. 

Right, if I disagree with you I must be stupid. Way to avoid backing up any of your claims.

9 minutes ago, thedude4bides said:

Paranoid?  Propaganda?  Don't think so.  There are very real threats from that side, just as there are from the other.  This isn't the place to hash them out but wake up, dude...

I used to think that way for a brief time a few years ago. Then I woke up. The reality of it is that you have nothing to say regarding the CoC itself, you're just automatically against it because you think it represents a conspiracy theory you've been spoonfed. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere, I just hope you'll think about what I said and maybe question your beliefs a little; it can't hurt.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Right, if I disagree with you I must be stupid. Way to avoid backing up any of your claims.

I used to think that way for a brief time a few years ago. Then I woke up. The reality of it is that you have nothing to say regarding the CoC itself, you're just automatically against it because you think it represents a conspiracy theory you've been spoonfed. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere, I just hope you'll think about what I said and maybe question your beliefs a little; it can't hurt.

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing... take any position you want on the appropriateness of what happened to Garfield, but to claim the analogous nature of that situation to this one requires a stretch of the imagination is willful ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, thedude4bides said:

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing... take any position you want on the appropriateness of what happened to Garfield, but to claim the analogous nature of that situation to this one requires a stretch of the imagination is willful ignorance.

I suppose we all see what we want to see. Nobody has been kicked out of the Linux community following the CoC change or for any reason resembling Garfield's case (as far as I know) and the event happened half a year ago in a different community with different people. Don't get me wrong - I understand why you are making the connection. I just don't think you have a point.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I suppose we all see what we want to see. Nobody has been kicked out of the Linux community following the CoC change or for any reason resembling Garfield's case (as far as I know) and the event happened half a year ago in a different community with different people. Don't get me wrong - I understand why you are making the connection. I just don't think you have a point.

...or don't see what we don't want to see.  Yes.  Agreed on that.  

 

And it's not me who made the connection.  It's out there as a top concern from folks against this whole notion.

 

What I haven't seen, and I'd love to be educated on... scratch that... I'll ask another way...

 

What was so broken in the Linux community that required an external ideological entity to come barging in demanding to dictate CoC?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, asus killer said:

American nonsense. Sorry but it's the truth.

 

In most countries a person commits a robbery period, in the US they tell you the color of the person that commits a robbery.

Not a US only thing TBH. :S

22 hours ago, Sauron said:

Nobody gets "hired" by the kernel maintainers

I know, I was talking about this in general, not just in this case. 

22 hours ago, Drak3 said:

That's an answer that is highly political.

True, I guess.

21 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

You're too normal to understand. You live in the real world and probably have never heard about all the bad things from the "Gender Studies" department. Sadly I have to crush your world and try to explain this shit:

 

The Reason for this is the 

And the "Oppression Ladder", where the "White Cis Male" is THE Oppressor of everybody. And because the "White Cis Male" Oppresses everybody, they stand at the top. And because of the Oppresion, they keep everyone else down and one has to do something about that. We need to limit the power the cis white males, because they are the Oprressors and bring in females and people of color. Because they want Equity, not equal oppurtunity.

 

 

DO NOT CLICK THIS LINK,#NSFL!!

^ that's a bit detailed explanation of this theory.


I obviously do not believe in that. But there are a couple of people that do. And they are trying to force their way in here...

Hmmmmmm. One word: omegalul.

CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K | Motherboard: AsRock X99 Extreme4 | Graphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming | RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws4 2133MHz | Storage: 1 x Samsung 860 EVO 1TB | 1 x WD Green 2TB | 1 x WD Blue 500GB | PSU: Corsair RM750x | Case: Phanteks Enthoo Pro (White) | Cooling: Arctic Freezer i32

 

Mice: Logitech G Pro X Superlight (main), Logitech G Pro Wireless, Razer Viper Ultimate, Zowie S1 Divina Blue, Zowie FK1-B Divina Blue, Logitech G Pro (3366 sensor), Glorious Model O, Razer Viper Mini, Logitech G305, Logitech G502, Logitech G402

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thedude4bides said:

What was so broken in the Linux community that required an external ideological entity to come barging in demanding to dictate CoC? 

Nobody barged in to anything, the Technical Advisory Board saw fit to change it and they seemingly thought this document would work just fine. Their motivation is their own, though Torvald's recent apology for what he considers in retrospect to be antisocial behaviour probably was part of what sparked the discussion internally. They probably just wanted to hold themselves up to slightly higher standards. Other than that, we don't know what goes on between members of the community in private chats; if the maintainers know about cases of harassment or discrimination, a handful of instances are probably enough to warrant a change - at least in their opinion.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Nobody barged in to anything, the Technical Advisory Board saw fit to change it and they seemingly thought this document would work just fine. Their motivation is their own, though Torvald's recent apology for what he considers in retrospect to be antisocial behaviour probably was part of what sparked the discussion internally. They probably just wanted to hold themselves up to slightly higher standards. Other than that, we don't know what goes on between members of the community in private chats; if the maintainers know about cases of harassment or discrimination, a handful of instances are probably enough to warrant a change - at least in their opinion.

 Agreed that there's internal information we don't/can't know and it's honestly not really worth speculating about but we do know they've been trying to impose this on Linux since at least 2015 and it was finally adopted 3 years later which coincidentally happened when Linus broke for whatever reason.  Sure, sounds like it wasn't forced at all to me.

 

Have to ask yourself: why would all the concern (or even outrage) be popping up if this is just to up the current standards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 11:20 AM, cj09beira said:

Activists from the feminist and LGBTQIA+ communities have been trying to force the Linux project  PUTS ON BRAKES....

enough said, fu** thoses snowflakes

 

 

I second this statement

Workstation Laptop: Dell Precision 7540, Xeon E-2276M, 32gb DDR4, Quadro T2000 GPU, 4k display

Wifes Rig: ASRock B550m Riptide, Ryzen 5 5600X, Sapphire Nitro+ RX 6700 XT, 16gb (2x8) 3600mhz V-Color Skywalker RAM, ARESGAME AGS 850w PSU, 1tb WD Black SN750, 500gb Crucial m.2, DIYPC MA01-G case

My Rig: ASRock B450m Pro4, Ryzen 5 3600, ARESGAME River 5 CPU cooler, EVGA RTX 2060 KO, 16gb (2x8) 3600mhz TeamGroup T-Force RAM, ARESGAME AGV750w PSU, 1tb WD Black SN750 NVMe Win 10 boot drive, 3tb Hitachi 7200 RPM HDD, Fractal Design Focus G Mini custom painted.  

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 video card benchmark result - AMD Ryzen 5 3600,ASRock B450M Pro4 (3dmark.com)

Daughter 1 Rig: ASrock B450 Pro4, Ryzen 7 1700 @ 4.2ghz all core 1.4vCore, AMD R9 Fury X w/ Swiftech KOMODO waterblock, Custom Loop 2x240mm + 1x120mm radiators in push/pull 16gb (2x8) Patriot Viper CL14 2666mhz RAM, Corsair HX850 PSU, 250gb Samsun 960 EVO NVMe Win 10 boot drive, 500gb Samsung 840 EVO SSD, 512GB TeamGroup MP30 M.2 SATA III SSD, SuperTalent 512gb SATA III SSD, CoolerMaster HAF XM Case. 

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/37004594?

Daughter 2 Rig: ASUS B350-PRIME ATX, Ryzen 7 1700, Sapphire Nitro+ R9 Fury Tri-X, 16gb (2x8) 3200mhz V-Color Skywalker, ANTEC Earthwatts 750w PSU, MasterLiquid Lite 120 AIO cooler in Push/Pull config as rear exhaust, 250gb Samsung 850 Evo SSD, Patriot Burst 240gb SSD, Cougar MX330-X Case

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thedude4bides said:

 we do know they've been trying to impose this on Linux since at least 2015 and it was finally adopted 3 years later which coincidentally happened when Linus broke for whatever reason.

This change was most likely spearheaded, or at the very least entirely approved, by Torvalds. He signed it and it's in line with his latest statement on how he thinks his recent actions weren't acceptable. As for how long people have been pressuring the team to use it, again I don't really think it matters - the authors wrote the statement with the express purpose of using it in foss communities, it makes sense that they would want the largest foss project to use it. Torvalds and the TAB aren't pushovers, they won't be pressured into doing things they don't want to. Do you know for how long Torvalds has been pestered and pressured to start using C++, moving to GPL3 and plenty of other things? And yet he hasn't bulged. 3 years of pressure is nothing.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sauron said:

This change was most likely spearheaded, or at the very least entirely approved, by Torvalds. He signed it and it's in line with his latest statement on how he thinks his recent actions weren't acceptable. As for how long people have been pressuring the team to use it, again I don't really think it matters - the authors wrote the statement with the express purpose of using it in foss communities, it makes sense that they would want the largest foss project to use it. Torvalds and the TAB aren't pushovers, they won't be pressured into doing things they don't want to. Do you know for how long Torvalds has been pestered and pressured to start using C++, moving to GPL3 and plenty of other things? And yet he hasn't bulged. 3 years of pressure is nothing.

Now speculation suits us.  Fine.  

 

I'll argue that now Torvalds is a pushover.  He finally broke.

 

Your point on C++ and 3 years being nothing supports this.

 

The fact you blatantly dismiss known and documented tactics employed to force CoC adoption is... an interesting choice to say the least.  

 

Not sure we'll get much further than that on the topic.  

 

Cheers to you, sir.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insanity, thy name is hate... if they aren't the same as you.

Please quote my post, or put @paddy-stone if you want me to respond to you.

Spoiler
  • PCs:- 
  • Main PC build  https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/2K6Q7X
  • ASUS x53e  - i7 2670QM / Sony BD writer x8 / Win 10, Elemetary OS, Ubuntu/ Samsung 830 SSD
  • Lenovo G50 - 8Gb RAM - Samsung 860 Evo 250GB SSD - DVD writer
  •  
  • Displays:-
  • Philips 55 OLED 754 model
  • Panasonic 55" 4k TV
  • LG 29" Ultrawide
  • Philips 24" 1080p monitor as backup
  •  
  • Storage/NAS/Servers:-
  • ESXI/test build  https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/4wyR9G
  • Main Server https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/3Qftyk
  • Backup server - HP Proliant Gen 8 4 bay NAS running FreeNAS ZFS striped 3x3TiB WD reds
  • HP ProLiant G6 Server SE316M1 Twin Hex Core Intel Xeon E5645 2.40GHz 48GB RAM
  •  
  • Gaming/Tablets etc:-
  • Xbox One S 500GB + 2TB HDD
  • PS4
  • Nvidia Shield TV
  • Xiaomi/Pocafone F2 pro 8GB/256GB
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4

 

  • Unused Hardware currently :-
  • 4670K MSI mobo 16GB ram
  • i7 6700K  b250 mobo
  • Zotac GTX 1060 6GB Amp! edition
  • Zotac GTX 1050 mini

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2018 at 3:16 PM, Sniperfox47 said:

Umm I'm not sure what you're talking about but Marxism is explicitly *against* segregating people by social class. I don't normally cite Wikipedia but I'm tired and don't feel like pulling exact quotes, so this can provide references to them for you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory

Quote

Marx distinguishes one class from another on the basis of two criteria: ownership of the means of production and control of the labor powerof others. From this, Marx states "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other":

I. Capitalists, or bourgeoisie, own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others

II. Workers, or proletariat, do not own any means of production or the ability to purchase the labor power of others. Rather, they sell their own labor power.

Class is thus determined by property relations, not by income or status. These factors are determined by distribution and consumption, which mirror the production and power relations of classes.

The Manifesto of the Communist Party describes two additional classes that “decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry”:

iii. A small, transitional class known as the petite bourgeoisie own sufficient means of production but do not purchase labor power. Marx's Communist Manifesto fails to properly define the petite bourgeoisie beyond “smaller capitalists” (Marx and Engels, 1848, 25).

iv. The “dangerous class”, or Lumpenproletariat, “the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society.”

I think you mean Marxism doesn't use tradition class classifications that we are all used to: Low-middle-Upper class. But it segregated people into classes (e.g. Glorious Communist Brothers v Bourgeoisie)

 

Also, when talking about Marxism, you need to distinguish between Political and Economic, as they are very different.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Inject identity politics into anything and you can be assured it'll go down in flames"

RejZoR

 

Save this quote, you'll need it in the future. A lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blake said:

I think you mean Marxism doesn't use tradition class classifications that we are all used to: Low-middle-Upper class. But it segregated people into classes (e.g. Glorious Communist Brothers v Bourgeoisie)

 

Also, when talking about Marxism, you need to distinguish between Political and Economic, as they are very different.

 

 

This isn't really on topic and we should probably keep the focus on the topic at hand.

 

All I'll say is that I explicitly said that they don't segregate people by *social* class. The Working Class concept in Marxism isnt the same as traditional social class.

 

Something something segway back into on topic conversation something something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LAwLz said:

it says you need to be tolerant of opposing views

The problem with that is that, say, "I want to throw gays into an asylum, because it's wrong in the eyes of God and gays should be punished for it" isn't an opinion. That's something that directly affects my (and other LGBT people's) ability to live a good, fulfilling life. It's hatred.

 

That's a problem that I personally have with that CoC. It doesn't address sexual discrimination and instead says that we must be "tolerant" of "other views". I'm sorry but I refuse to accept homophobia as a "view".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, no one should care about gender, skin color or whatever. Only question should be, can you code and can you debug things. You can be a transgender lesbian with depression and only one leg and if you're an expert at doing job well or simply prove your worth (anyone even knows what's meritocracy anymore?), you'll do just fine. If people think that white men just automatically get everything handed over just because they are white and have a dongle between legs, they are greatly mistaken. If anything, white men are currently probably the most discriminated group of people in the western world because freaking everyone just automatically assumes our grandfathers must have been slave owners and that shit was handed over to us automatically through our entire lives. Newsflash, it wasn't. Also, when someone starts barking at my gender or skin color, something that's entirely out of your control, I can't take them seriously on any level and just tell them to kindly F off. And that's how everyone should treat them. They are a tiny but obnoxiously loud minority. Give them a finger and they'll take both of your arms. And a leg. Instead, they are injecting these special oppressed/privileged classes into everything, segregating people more than all the racists and homophobes ever have through history, pretending they are fighting for equality. Who the hell are they kidding...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sauron said:

I thought I made myself clear on this, obviously not - it doesn't matter if the ruby CoC is better. You're saying the Linux CoC is catastrophically bad and it endangers the kernel, I'm saying that's nonsense. I won't be dragged into a completely separate debate about what CoCs are better or worse. I never said you are wrong about this - I said it's irrelevant.

To me it matters a lot. Like I said in the other thread regarding meritocracy, I only want the best to be in Linux. If someone is a child rapist and submit a really good patch, I want that patch merged into the main branch. I think the same applies to the CoC. I want the best CoC to be used, not this one which I think it really bad and opens up a ton of opportunities for abuse.

 

Also, it is already endangering the kernel. I've already seen messages from two high-up developers who has said that they will finish what they are working on but then stop developing for the Linux kernel because they do not want to constantly fear saying something someone thinks is offensive and getting banned from the project because of it.

 

But we will see. If Linux loses more developers then I will say that I was right in that the CoC harmed Linux, and we all lose.

If you're right then not much happens.

What I have been arguing for is that we should minimize the damage and risk of me being correct. Do you not think assuming and preparing for the worst is better than just hoping that nothing goes bad? It's like driving around without a seat-belt because "you just think you're going to crash, but what I am saying is that we might not necessarily crash".

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Sauron said:

There are no set punishments in the Linux CoC. That's a false interpretation of written English. As for the "purpose" they were designed for, that's pure propaganda - unless your "political views" include harassment and discrimination, you shouldn't have any problems following the new guidelines. I know you'll quote the author saying it is a political document, and once again I'll repeat that it doesn't matter who wrote it or what they think - the CoC is its own entity and must be judged separately from its author.

My political views do in fact include "harassment and discrimination" if you talk to some extremists. Like I said earlier, apparently you are a rape apologist if you point out that flawed surveys and exaggerated conclusions won't solve issues. But I do not believe my political views should have ANYTHING to do with my code and whether or not my code gets submitted. See? Even you bring up that my political views suddenly matter when it comes to submitting work to the Linux kernel. It shouldn't, but now it does.

 

And I have judged the CoC as its own entity. It is shit on its own rights and the Ruby one is far superior. Hell even the old one Linux had was better.

 

The problem here is that all your arguments are based on good faith, but since this CoC was adopted to begin with that good faith no longer exists in many peoples' eyes. Wasn't it you who said that it is normal for a CoC to revised and specific terminology debated and tweaked? In the case of this CoC it was argued behind closed doors and then rushed out and forced onto people. By the way, the vote was 6 to 5 in favor of this CoC. One of the people who voted no was Ted, and as I have repeatedly said in this thread he is already being attacked for "breaking" this new CoC. If he gets booted off the project then Linux has officially been overtaken by SJW and is a political movement.

 

 

13 hours ago, Sauron said:

I don't really see how Garfield is in any way connected to this... if you mean the guy I think you do, the whole controversy around him happened back in march and he wasn't a Linux developer (or at least, that's not what he got kicked out of).

 

I think you're being paranoid about supposed "sjw types" with such a strangle hold on power across areas they don't belong... that's mostly propaganda. Sure, there are some crazy "social justice" types but they aren't nearly as many as some loud people would have you believe.

You keep saying that it's just paranoia and propaganda but there is a growing list of people who has gotten banned from projects who has adopted this CoC or similar ones. You can't say it's paranoia or propaganda when we see it happening in other projects. Ignoring what is happening elsewhere is just sticking your head in the sand and pretending like everything is fine.

The arguments and logic you are using could be used to justify basically anything, including things like dictatorships because apparently historical evidence no longer has any value.

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

 

And while "crazy social justice" people aren't as many as some people believe, a lot of them do hold very powerful positions such as reporters. Have you read the hit-piece on Linus Torvalds that was published a few days before he stepped down? On top of that his daughter is a supporter of the post-meritocracy manifesto. Do you not think that people can be pressured or even threatened to do things they do not agree with? Hell, Coraline even pushed to have a committee installed in the Ruby community to oversee and enforce her CoC (which she luckily failed to get pushed through, neither her terrible CoC nor the committee).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

That's a problem that I personally have with that CoC. It doesn't address sexual discrimination and instead says that we must be "tolerant" of "other views". I'm sorry but I refuse to accept homophobia as a "view".

Isn't that intolerance? You expect others to share your view but others can't have their own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×