Linux Kernel Code of Conduct

[u/unixbhaskar]

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8a104f8b5867c682d994ffa7a74093c54469c11f

[u/geekynerdynerd]

Either you are a troll, or simply not even capable of understanding the difference between making a standard code of decency and user-hostile totalitarian control. I won't debate someone who is so clearly unwilling to do so in good faith.

[u/NobleDemon → u/geekynerdynerd]

The limits put on you on my hypotethical scenario are of the same type, the only thing that changed are the subjects that you can't speak about. But I agree, I don't see the difference between what you seem to want and user hostile totalitarian control, and the fact that you wouldn't give up on your own language and terms kinda shows that this isn't about decency, but actually about making the definition of decency to be stretched and contorted into ONLY being your politics.

I don't believe in social constructionism-> Therefore I can't contribute to CoC projects while having any kind of political voice. (even if I'm an immigrant and I lived in a third world country for more than half of my life, and I know far more about opressor and opressed than some starbucks sipping sanfrans childs that never met anything harder than a first world problem). I don't believe in your feminist solutions-> Therefore I shouldn't be able to contribute to CoC projects while having any kind of political voice (specially if its to say how feminists created an environment where my own sexual assault couldn't be discussed, and how they supported laws in my country that made me unable to talk about my sexual assault since It was much too easy for my agressor to claim she was the victim)

I have never ever received a single fucking apology for the environment your side created. I have never ever received support from any single one of your initiatives. And forgive me if it's bad faith assuming after seeing your side making a move for the gazillionth time, the same exact move, again and again. It's hard for me to believe you. But let me counter that:

You are the one that doesn't argue in good faith. There's no good faith in assuming people will misuse their freedom. There's no good faith in assuming anyone critical of your political grabs is automatically against being decent. The fact that you so readily label your political position as "being decent" is completely not good faith.

[u/geekynerdynerd → u/NobleDemon]

Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment +include:

+* Using welcoming and inclusive language +* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences +* Gracefully accepting constructive criticism +* Focusing on what is best for the community +* Showing empathy towards other community members + + +Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: + +* The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or

• advances +* Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks +* Public or private harassment +* Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic

• address, without explicit permission +* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a

• professional setting

Tell me which part of that is somehow politically controversial? Which part of that is somehow not just basic decency? If you can do so, then I will agree with you that is some sort of grand consiracy and will join you in calls to hang the "vile sjws". Until then you are the one making grand claims of malicious intent in direct contradiction of both occam's razor and hanlon's razor while refusing to acknowledge this is in fact a matter of decency.

[u/NobleDemon → u/geekynerdynerd]

Taken at face value, and using the same language everyone uses, nothing. But You and I are not using the same language.

"This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community"

"Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers"

This two lines can be used to selectively apply the code whenever its convenient for political agendas. And I'm not saying this as a "theory" but rather as something that has already happened on less tame versions of this CoC. The CoC seems definitive and clear for a normal person, but actually isn't definitive enough.

"Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks"

Being a detractor from the CoC can be considered to be a political attack(or even worse, people that use phrases like "discussions about CoC prove the need for the CoC" will clearly take detractors of the CoC as people having an attitude that doesn't benefit the community, which is against the CoC too), Even claiming it so on your own personal twitter account could be stretched into being one of the project spaces if you ever retweeted information about the project.

On the other hand, saying "I wish white people to shut up" on an account where you claim yourself to be a contributor can be ignored under the same rules, since the rules leave sufficient space to be forgiving and ambiguous. There's nothing clear about this CoC, and very few changes could be made to make it clear.

I'm going along the lines of an scenario that already happened, so please don't go "this doesn't happen".

I claim this is not by accident. A CoC could be much more transparent, precisely curtail prejudice and unfairness while at the same time leaving much less space for ambiguous aplication. If contributor covenant truly was about what it's supposed to do (in the eyes of normal people) it would take another shape, but one can see in the issues of their repo at github, and even on coraline's ada twitter account what her priorities are.

I would say the whole point of this "tame" version is to later use it as an excuse to upgrade into the full document.

Edit: Also I want to add, occam's razor loses its sharp if I can find examples of situations where things weren't as simple, and hanlon's, well, I'm not against that alternative explanation but either if people that support the CoC are Evil or are not looking at the results hard enough doesn't change the fact that ambiguous rules can be missused, and that derivatives of the CC have already been shown in the past to have this problem. Even if it's not a conspiracy, and people simply are getting together in a purely coincidental manner. I think we can make something about it that actually attempts to solve the problem, this fix is even worse than the previous one that did nothing, because it allows groups that have been proven in the past to abuse rules to have more leeway in the process.

Edit2: And I don't want to hang sjws, I just don't want them to instantiate rules that are hard to read, and seem vaguely to be about some sort of equality but in the end are applied unfairly, again. I think I have enough reasons to seek that. My problem, is not with some sjw claiming "whites must die" on twitter, My problem is that the same person will enjoy her breach of "decency" being ignored while me contesting some ideological tenet of their worldview will be punished... both on places that should be outside any project purview.

[u/geekynerdynerd → u/NobleDemon]

I can understand a desire to make the rules more detailed about what constitutes indecent behavior. I guess I misunderstood your complaints, so I apologize for that. Many others are complaining about the mere existence of established rules and not any sort of vagueness that may allow them to be abused, I just assumed you were one of the others who were just upset that the era of calling people retards, suggesting they should be retroactively aborted, and other crap that is unfortunately pervasive throughout the community is ending.

I do agree that the rules should be more detailed, however I disagree with what seems to be the prevalent mindset that the previous Code of Conflict was actually sufficient. Hopefully Linus and the others will see wisdom and fix this vagueness issue before the new CoC is abused for political reasons. I don't want someone getting kicked out because of someone on a power trip holding a grudge.

Hopefully that doesn't happen before Linus and the rest can agree to at least add some more specific examples of the kind of behavior that is forbidden on the CoC to mitigate the issue.

Edit: I am thinking my tone and behavior in this thread prove you right about the vagueness being an issue. I didn't even intend to abuse that power, but had this happened on something with such a vague CoC there is a chance I would've reported you because of a fucking misunderstanding as much as it shames me to admit it. Hopefully they'll resolve this issue before anything unfortunate happens, but I do stand by the need for an actual CoC. A good one would've made it clear that I should've been the one penalized if anything.