Quoting: ColomboNot only you didn't read the post, you didn't read my post. I asked if you did read two posts before the one you linked. And no, you didn't.

I did read your post, but I did misunderstand you. I don't frequent mailing list archives, so I navigated with the 'previous message' 'next message' buttons, rather than the 'in reply to' button. So I went in both directions several times and I couldn't find anyone using statistics. You said: "Have you tried to read just two posts before that when someone was using statistics to prove their point?" and since you didn't mention who 'someone' was or the point they were making I could only conclude that you were talking about T'so 'previous' message where he used statistics. That's my mistake, but I'd appreciate if you could use names, links, or quotes in future. That said I still stand by most of post, but now at least now I understand why he used the '1 in 6' '1 in 4' numbers.

T'so's post is also confusingly vague in relation to what he's replying to. He never mentions Jacinta Richardson and never quotes her words in that post. He never mentions the conference or the %6. Richardson's argument is that it's extremely likely that multiple sexual assault survivors attended the conference who could be made uncomfortably by the sexual imagery used. And you're misrepresenting her %6 figure:

Quoting: JacintaRichardsonStudies show that about 6% of men are willing to self-report to rape so long as the word "rape" isn't used. Potentially 37 attendees at LCA are sexual predators who don't view themselves as such.

And T'so never directly addresses this. Instead he makes a straw man fallacy depicting rapists in a strangely specific way, initially to tear down the ideas he assumes are being presented by the statistics, but evidence of this is no where to be found. He also seems to use it as of separating violent rape from less violent rape (as sexual assault is always an act of violence), but I don't understand why it matters when victims could be traumatized regardless.

Quoting: TedTso(Which makes it no less a crime, of course, but people may have images of rape which involves a other physical injuries, by a stranger, in some dark and deserted place. The statistics simply don't bear that out.)

Quoting: TedTsoIf the statistics include cases where both college students are drunk,
and sexual penetration occurs, and since the women didn't give
consent, obviously its rape, then it's fair to ask what percentage of
the statistics are this sort of case, and what percentage of the cases
are one where the women is jumped from behind in Central Park by a
strange, and raped at knifepoint.

...

Not that I'm justifying miscommunication leading to sex; but I do
characterize that as being different than being raped at gunpoint.

(can be read [here](http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/ted/reply.txt))

Again what does this have to do with the conference, harassment policy, or Richardson's post? At the same time he fixates on dismissing sexual coercion via alcohol; despite the fact that it's a much more likely scenario than his back-alley stranger and is still sexual assault. And if this isn't victim blaming, I don't know what is:

Quoting: TedTsoSuppose Bob was partially inebriated, and said he wasn't sure if he wanted to have sex,
but Alice wheedled him and kept on asking until he said yes. No force was involved,
but he could be "psychologically coerced"? Would that be an indication that she raped him?
Suppose Bob drank the alcohol himself, willingly. And if he was still raped, does he
bear any responsibility for put himself into a situation where Alice could ask and ask him
until he said yes?

He's trying to make a point by switching the genders, but it falls flat. Repeatedly badgering someone for sex is a use of force. And regardless of how intoxicated a person is, it's never okay to take advantage of someone when they've already repeatedly propositioned them without success. So no, Bob wouldn't be responsible if he was raped; the person who chose to keep pursuing him, chose to take advantage of his intoxication, chose to rape him, bears the responsibility. People don't choose to get raped, no more than people choose to get murdered.

Of course, Richardson never said anything about sexual coercion or alcohol, so even in the proper context that I missed he's still off base. His point seems to be that Richardson is fear mongering because not that many adult women are getting violently raped; and if so I don't see what that specific subset has to do with anything? Especially since it's estimated that %30 of sexual assault cases aren't [reported](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system). Richardson's argument was not that women are going to get violently raped at the conference (or in a park, apparently?), but that there's likely sexual assault victims at the conference as well as perpetrators who don't understand what constitutes sexual assault; and I'd say T'so proves her point (though I want to clarify that I'm in no way accusing T'so of sexual assault, just that he doesn't understand it). He also misconstrues the 1 in 4 figure, as Richardson specifically said sexual assault and not just penetrative rape.

So yeah, I did miss the post you were referencing, but even after reading it I'm still left scratching my head as to why he thought this was an appropriate response. I also strongly reject the idea that my last post was a 'straw man', because that implies I made false arguments on T'so's behalf only to tear them down. I've been pretty thorough in showing where my assertions come from. I've been arguing in good faith based on what I read. I missed some context but it doesn't really change much about my argument: He made a poor, ill informed argument that had little to do with what was being discussed.

And if you're going to make assumptions about T'so's argument or my argument please include the specific parts of the posts that support that. I won't be satisfied with just "it feels" and "It seems".

Quoting: liamdaweYou can get a point across easily without being a rude, obnoxious and hostile.

That's true. But we are all just humans. We all do this from time to time. The most important part is knowing when you did this and maybe consider not going that route in the future.

Some times, one might not realize that one is insulting because one might feel to be "on the right side". But that happens. Everybody has different views, and that's fine.

Not going to quote this entire thread here, I find this rather to the point:

From there the conversation is basically people debating these changes and whether women in the community have been given an inclusive environment, and how to implement one. It loses focus when people really start going at each other, but that's the basic discussion.

These are different things. It is very rare to have a formal debate on a mailing list certainly not the the degree you appear to expect. Discussions DO get heated (how you judge this simply from words I wouldn't begin to fathom considering you also state above you don't read mailing lists often). Linux and OSS have largely existed based on upfront, honest communication with less emphasis on poltical discourse. Believe it or not people are quite fine with that.

This is why T'so's comment seems to come out of left field; the only thread is that it is related to violence against women. However, he focuses on strangely specific kind of violence: forcible rape of women who were 18+ at the time. His argument is that the statistics regarding rape against women are exaggerated and dishonest.

Just a bit harsh if not slanderious no? Most people would say it's his opinion.

He mentions 2 studies, the National
Violence Against Women Survey (2000) and the Sexual Experiences Survey (1987); his '1 in 6' and '1 and 4' numbers respectively.

....

I lied, there is another quote:

He also seems to use it as of separating violent rape from less violent rape (as sexual assault is always an act of violence), but I don't understand why it matters when victims could be traumatized regardless.

Sexual Assault is not defacto rape. Sorry to break it to you. Much of your quotes above carry the same line of fallacies.

Edits: formatting

An interesting development is that "some" core developers are now considering the nuclear option, of revoke permission for using their contributed code.

This would be terrible almost regardless of who those "some" are, now it *seems* to be a powerplay in order to have the new Code of Conduct reworked so that it has less of room for being exploited to randomly evict people and keep the meritocracy in place.

Some notes;
- They can indeed revoke permission, under GPL v2 each contributer keeps copyright of their work. Moving to GPL v3 requires each contributer to sign over their copyright individually.
- It's unclear how many core developers are involved as being seen publicly speaking against the new code will have people give you fun label such as "rape apologist", people aren't exactly lining up to put their name to it.
- This is my take / interpretation of the current turmoil, read it as such :P

I personally hope they manage to balance merits & inclusiveness without fracturing the codebase - on the surface it does seem like it should be fairly easy to have a "don't be a jerk to other contributers or users" policy and leave it at that - because honestly does it really matter what kind of asshat a person is outside of the project? If it turned out that large portions of the kernel were written by people whose worldview you find abhorrent, would you stop using it(and there by Linux)?

Quoting: GuppyThey can indeed revoke permission, under GPL v2 each contributer keeps copyright of their work.

No developer can revoke the code published under GPLv2. That's what the GPL was designed for. The GPL enforces future freedom of code.

Quoting: GuppyI personally hope they manage to balance merits & inclusiveness

I'm really not sure if you need to "balance" that. In my view, they are not really connected in any way. If you're good at coding, your code will get included because it's good.

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: GuppyThey can indeed revoke permission, under GPL v2 each contributer keeps copyright of their work.

No developer can revoke the code published under GPLv2. That's what the GPL was designed for. The GPL enforces future freedom of code.

ESR disagrees with your assessment, and I'd take his word over yours tbh.
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1809.2/06864.html

Quoting: Eric S. RaymondFirst, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the
relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the
U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to
conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are
judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in
countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.'s opt-out of
the "moral rights" clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an
even stronger case.

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: GuppyI personally hope they manage to balance merits & inclusiveness

I'm really not sure if you need to "balance" that. In my view, they are not really connected in any way. If you're good at coding, your code will get included because it's good.

Given that the author is also responsible for this https://postmeritocracy.org/ and that beeing "good at coding" is a merit, do you still hold this opinion? at least I hope you can see where the concern stems from

Quoting: GuppyESR disagrees with your assessment, and I'd take his word over yours tbh.
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1809.2/06864.html

I know his stance, but I'm really not sure why he thinks that. Stallman (author of GPL) says otherwise: https://www.itwire.com/open-source/84683-linux-code-contributions-cannot-be-rescinded-stallman.html

I'm not sure how that would work? Can you only revoke the exact code you submitted? Or any line of code you submitted any kind of patch for? How would that even work? Everything can be changed by others in time. If any part of Linux you submitted is changed by multiple others after that and only 40% or your original code is there anymore. What then?

Quoting: GuppyGiven that the author is also responsible for this https://postmeritocracy.org/ and that beeing "good at coding" is a merit, do you still hold this opinion? at least I hope you can see where the concern stems from

I don't see it. There is of course something called "institutional racism/sexism". But that's just how society works. Just give it some time and it will work itself out. It's on a very good way if you ask me. By insisting on even more groups and categories for human beings, one does only achieve the opposite of the desired effect.

It should absolutely be only about the code. No one needs to know any of your social status or anything else when you submitted some code. However, in human communication such things are important. That's true. But for the code quality, it just doesn't matter.

"Make good code and be excellent to each other" is completely sufficient.

I seem to recall a few GPLv2 projects that had to have contributers sign over copyright in order to change license. but then IANAL - hopefully time won't tell who is right ;)

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: GuppyGiven that the author is also responsible for this https://postmeritocracy.org/ and that beeing "good at coding" is a merit, do you still hold this opinion? at least I hope you can see where the concern stems from

I don't see it. There is of course something called "institutional racism/sexism". But that's just how society works. Just give it some time and it will work itself out. It's on a very good way if you ask me. By insisting on even more groups and categories for human beings, one does only achieve the opposite of the desired effect.

It should absolutely be only about the code. No one needs to know any of your social status or anything else when you submitted some code. However, in human communication such things are important. That's true. But for the code quality, it just doesn't matter.

"Make good code and be excellent to each other" is completely sufficient.

At the heart of it I think we agree, how ever the fear is still there that it could very well be that who gets to submit code or set the future direction of Linux could be chosen not on Technical merit but on filling some social quota.

Quoting: GuppyI seem to recall a few GPLv2 projects that had to have contributers sign over copyright in order to change license. but then IANAL - hopefully time won't tell who is right ;)

That is indeed needed to change the license. That still doesn't mean that any code published under GPLv2 before that change of licence is somehow revoked. The GPL says that this code is free no matter what. That is the point of it.

Quoting: GuppyAt the heart of it I think we agree, how ever the fear is still there that it could very well be that who gets to submit code or set the future direction of Linux could be chosen not on Technical merit but on filling some social quota.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I also think that code shouldn't be some kind of social quota filling. Every kind of special treatment for any group is not a good thing in my book, be it small groups or big groups.

Quoting: Guppy

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: GuppyI personally hope they manage to balance merits & inclusiveness

I'm really not sure if you need to "balance" that. In my view, they are not really connected in any way. If you're good at coding, your code will get included because it's good.

Given that the author is also responsible for this https://postmeritocracy.org/ and that beeing "good at coding" is a merit, do you still hold this opinion? at least I hope you can see where the concern stems from

We just had this conversation in the comments of another topic, but I still don't see what the author of the template document has to do with anything. They have no authority over the Linux kernel and the document doesn't change that. Only the content of the document as adopted by the Linux kernel matters. And the way the people in charge of the kernel read and understand it of course. It's not a legal document, and they can interpret and enforce it as they see fit.

Quoting: Doc Angelo"Make good code and be excellent to each other" is completely sufficient.

As you can see in the commit message Dedale linked to, it apparently wasn't. That's what the old Code of Conflict said, but it had no real effect. Something more explicit was needed, and I think the current CoC is a step in the right direction. It isn't perfect, but I don't see how that could ever be the case, and why that matters so much.

Quoting: tuubiAs you can see in the commit message Dedale linked to, it apparently wasn't. That's what the old Code of Conflict said, but it had no real effect. Something more explicit was needed, and I think the current CoC is a step in the right direction. It isn't perfect, but I don't see how that could ever be the case, and why that matters so much.

I see that it was changed, but nothing in there objectively shows and explains why the former wasn't sufficient. Can you personally explain how the new document helps? Are there any imaginable cases (or actual cases) where the old CoC wouldn't work, but the new one does?

I don't see how that would be the case. Just by being ever more explicit doesn't change anything. Take a look at the FreeBSD CoC for example. Those are pretty explicit regarding some specific kinds of things. Where do you end up if you just add more and more to it? It depends on context anyway. So why do things have to be so explicit?

Why is this topic important to me? Because such things get more and more leverage in the real world. That's not a good trend. As I said: Any kind of special treatment for anyone or any group is not a good thing. It ends up being a part of the problem just the same. For me such solutions are actually backward and not progressive.

For example: People say that women are not included enough, and that this partly stems from sexualized language. That's a sexist statement on itself. Such a statement doesn't fight sexism, it keeps it alive.

Quoting: GuestBesides, if you think that post-meritocracy nonsenses are just the sad drivel of some fringe loser you are mistaken.

Then I'm not mistaken, because I wouldn't say or think anything like that. On top of that, I'm not even sure what a "fringe loser" might be. (English is not my native tongue)

Quoting: GuestExactly the same arguments were used to efficiently destroy the high school system in my country.

I don't know your school system or how it was destroyed, so I can't comment on that either.

I just want to interject that I miss the times when anonymity on the Internet was the standard and judging people by their merit was not only the standard but the only thing you had to go by. There was no worry that you might be brushed aside because you were too old or too young, or not the right sex, or not from the right place. As long as what you said and did was valuable, there was no reason to exclude you, regardless of who and what you were elsewhere.

Such places still exist, but they seem to have been shrinking ever since Facebook caught on.

Ah, gotcha. I agree!

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: tuubiAs you can see in the commit message Dedale linked to, it apparently wasn't. That's what the old Code of Conflict said, but it had no real effect. Something more explicit was needed, and I think the current CoC is a step in the right direction. It isn't perfect, but I don't see how that could ever be the case, and why that matters so much.

I see that it was changed, but nothing in there objectively shows and explains why the former wasn't sufficient. Can you personally explain how the new document helps? Are there any imaginable cases (or actual cases) where the old CoC wouldn't work, but the new one does?

Is there any reason to suspect Thorvalds and gang didn't perform due diligence and decided to do this on a whim? Why would they have bothered with this if they felt the old Code of Conflict was working?

GamingOnLinux didn't have rules regarding personal attacks and behaviour towards minorities either, but now it does. Do you think that was unnecessary as well? Just ask Liam how much easier it is to keep things under control when you have a written document to refer to.

One reason for some explicit detail (with a reasonable amount of leeway) is the simple fact that people of different backgrounds and mindsets will never agree on what is "being excellent" and what is not. That should be obvious.

Quoting: GuestI believe E.S.Raymond's post explained well why it matters.

Mr. Raymond doesn't like Codes of Conduct or rules and regulations in general, which isn't surprising for a politically active Libertarian. He's well known for his hard-line views and not exactly the kind of guy I'd ask for tips on acceptable behaviour.

Quoting: tuubiIs there any reason to suspect Thorvalds and gang didn't perform due diligence and decided to do this on a whim? Why would they have bothered with this if they felt the old Code of Conflict was working?

There is absolutely no reason to suspect that. However, one can have a different opinion about the outcome of the process. I don't think it's a good thing. That doesn't mean that I think that Torvalds "and his gang" did something "wrong" or anything. I just disagree.

Quoting: tuubiGamingOnLinux didn't have rules regarding personal attacks and behaviour towards minorities either, but now it does. Do you think that was unnecessary as well? Just ask Liam how much easier it is to keep things under control when you have a written document to refer to.

Of course is it just the same kind of unnecessary here. There's no difference. Please provide examples where the needed control really couldn't have been exercised with the former rules.

Quoting: tuubiOne reason for some explicit detail (with a reasonable amount of leeway) is the simple fact that people of different backgrounds and mindsets will never agree on what is "being excellent" and what is not. That should be obvious.

"Don't discriminate" is sufficient for example. You don't need to create a list of possible and specific discriminations. For what would that be useful? "Discrimination" is already defined. People understand what this means. It's universal.

It's a very good point that there might be people who can't agree on what is acceptable and what not. In such cases, the board should decide on that. Take for example this line from the new CoC:

The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances

Is it now universally clear what exactly "sexual attention" is? For some, it is this text: "[Feel hugged!](https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html)" And now? Do we now have to include such details? Do we now have to include everything that some people think of as offensive, even when the majority of people (no matter who they are) understand is as not literal and not offensive?

This addition is not useful. Not in any way. The board would still have to decide on that.

Quoting: GuestI think there is a misunderstanding, you can be very well against enforcement policies, be sceptical of the police but totally loathe criminality.

This is absolutely not about what is or not acceptable behaviour. I suspect you have not read his post.

I've read the relevant part, and many of his writings over the years, and I don't think I've misunderstood anything crucial about his world view. And seeing as he's not part of the kernel community, I don't see why I should care.

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: tuubiGamingOnLinux didn't have rules regarding personal attacks and behaviour towards minorities either, but now it does. Do you think that was unnecessary as well? Just ask Liam how much easier it is to keep things under control when you have a written document to refer to.

Of course is it just the same kind of unnecessary here. There's no difference. Please provide examples where the needed control really couldn't have been exercised with the former rules.

I don't think examples are necessary. You're simply forgetting that having authority isn't the same as using it effectively without sparking unnecessary conflict. A set of rules every member has to accept to join makes things less messy.

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: tuubiOne reason for some explicit detail (with a reasonable amount of leeway) is the simple fact that people of different backgrounds and mindsets will never agree on what is "being excellent" and what is not. That should be obvious.

"Don't discriminate" is sufficient for example. You don't need to create a list of possible and specific discriminations. For what would that be useful? "Discrimination" is already defined. People understand what this means. It's universal.

I don't think it's as universal as you imagine, but even if we assume it is, I haven't heard a good counter argument yet: How would the examples (as that what they are) in the Linux kernel CoC make it more difficult to run the community?

Quoting: Doc AngeloIt's a very good point that there might be people who can't agree on what is acceptable and what not. In such cases, the board should decide on that. Take for example this line from the new CoC:

The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances

Is it now universally clear what exactly "sexual attention" is? For some, it is this text: "[Feel hugged!](https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html)" And now? Do we now have to include such details? Do we now have to include everything that some people think of as offensive, even when the majority of people (no matter who they are) understand is as not literal and not offensive?

How can you be confused about this? Give me one example of a situation where you might want to say something like that in a context related to the Linux kernel (or elsewhere), and I might bother answering this silliness. Not that the rule in question even comes from the document we're supposed to be discussing.

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: tuubiMr. Raymond doesn't like Codes of Conduct or rules and regulations in general, which isn't surprising for a politically active Libertarian. He's well known for his hard-line views and not exactly the kind of guy I'd ask for tips on acceptable behaviour.

He may not have the same views on politics and acceptable behavior as you do. But what now? Do you have to accept his behavior, or does he have to change according to your view?

Are you even trying to discuss the Linux kernel Code of Conduct, or pull me into some silly philosophical debate? Whether I accept his behaviour or not is irrelevant. Try to stay on topic.

Quoting: tuubiI don't think examples are necessary. You're simply forgetting that having authority isn't the same as using it effectively without sparking unnecessary conflict. A set of rules every member has to accept to join makes things less messy.

As I said: I don't see that. The rules are actually still vague. So why even bother creating them? Also: You can't just state that something is better without being able to provide a reason for it. I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound very confident to me.

Quoting: tuubiI don't think it's as universal as you imagine, but even if we assume it is, I haven't heard a good counter argument yet: How would the examples (as that what they are) in the Linux kernel CoC make it more difficult to run the community?

As you might have noticed, political correctness is something with a real leverage on the world. Sage Sharp tried to paint Theodore Tso as an "Rape Apologist" and suggested to remove him from Kernel development. For such people, the elaborate language they include in a CoC is a kind of opportunity for their goals, whatever the goals might be.

I just would like to keep all that madness out of FOSS. "Don't discriminate" is enough. "Thoughtless use of pronouns" is not helping at all. The kernel doesn't get better when all devs learn all possible pronouns. It's nice when someone is doing that. But pretty please don't enforce this on everybody.

Just be nice to each other. People are different. Not everything one doesn't like is intended to be interpreted as annoying or exclusion. We have to make sure that it stays that way. Otherwise we are about to get lost in a clusterfuck* of special rules for every living being.

*) If you don't mind my sexualized language.

Quoting: tuubiHow can you be confused about this? Give me one example of a situation where you might want to say something like that in a context related to the Linux kernel (or elsewhere), and I might bother answering this silliness. Not that the rule in question even comes from the document we're supposed to be discussing.

Okay...? That's rather easy: Someone helped me all night to get some changes into my code. After all that, I write in the chat: "Fucking nice, dude! You did it! We did it! Thanks for guiding me through this, man! *hug*"

Why not? What would be wrong with that? Are people not hugging each other where you come from?

Quoting: tuubiAre you even trying to discuss the Linux kernel Code of Conduct, or pull me into some silly philosophical debate? Whether I accept his behaviour or not is irrelevant. Try to stay on topic.

I actually intended it to be on topic, but it came out rather wrong and didn't actually add to my point. That's why I removed it. Just ignore it. :)

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: tuubiHow can you be confused about this? Give me one example of a situation where you might want to say something like that in a context related to the Linux kernel (or elsewhere), and I might bother answering this silliness. Not that the rule in question even comes from the document we're supposed to be discussing.

Okay...? That's rather easy: Someone helped me all night to get some changes into my code. After all that, I write in the chat: "Fucking nice, dude! You did it! We did it! Thanks for guiding me through this, man! *hug*"

Why not? What would be wrong with that? Are people not hugging each other where you come from?

I do hug friends and family members when appropriate, but I wouldn't go hugging strangers normally. Certainly not if I think they might not be comfortable with it. And some settings are more formal than others, which means we'll just have to control our impulses. Not likely that you'd get thrown out of the Linux kernel mailing lists for your hypothetical by the way, even if people might think you're drunk or something.

Quoting: tuubiI do hug friends and family members when appropriate, but I wouldn't go hugging strangers normally. Certainly not if I think they might not be comfortable with it.

Of course you don't. That would be pretty strange if you would just hug stranger, right? My example wasn't about one, obviously.

No matter how much you know someone, you never really now if he actually likes being hugged by everyone at a party or not. Unless you ask, of course. But that also shouldn't mean that you should ask every single one, because that would be equally weird. I, for example, don't particularly like being hugged by people I know at a party. It became a thing at some time. I just let it happen. It's no big deal for me. It's a well meant gesture after all. So why make a fuss out of it?

Quoting: tuubiNot likely that you'd get thrown out of the Linux kernel mailing lists for your hypothetical by the way, even if people might think you're drunk or something.

I agree for the Linux community. But for the FreeBSD community, this is a reality right now. Brought in with the same kind of reasoning.