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:

QuoteThe 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!" 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:

QuoteThe 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!" 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.