Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: scaineAgain, this isn't about Syldat, but about other people's reaction. Some of these people won't change.

Will these people change if he calls me and the majority of the world's population "abusers"? Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but that's a serious accusation where I come from.

Sorry, I honestly don't see where Syldat has done so? You both discussed religious foundation for abuse and bias for a bit, but I have to admit I skimmed most of that. Religion isn't my thing.

But to answer you question, "will they change", no they won't. My support of Syldat on this one point is that even if s/he was fully respectful and polite back as you suggest, they STILL won't change. That's incredibly tiring, knowing that something is so futile and still having to take the moral high ground constantly, while enduring withering personal attacks. And the moment they buckle and respond, THEY are the bad guy.

Hence, CoC should help with that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

We are talking? Talk away. Sometimes it's interesting to listen too. You're not though - your two questions to Syldat were "do you" and "are you willing", and I responded to you, about that.

And I responded because I do find this interesting. As a CIS, hetero, middle-aged white male, I'm part of this entire problem and I'd love to see a solution present itself. I just don't think one will present itself if we keep pushing responsibility for that solution on the targets of our own internal biases.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Again, this isn't about Syldat, but about other people's reaction. Some of these people won't change.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: baccilus@TheSyldat, this tribal mindset is very negative. For people to look beyond your gender identity, you will have to do so too.

You're missing the point. Many people won't 'look beyond' a gender identity. Ever. Your comment I quoted is pushing 'blame' for this situation back on Syldat, exactly as I described in my earlier post. It's natural to want how to do so, but this isn't something that Syldat has to or even can change, it's everyone else and, since many won't, that's why a CoC can help.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I can see both sides. When #metoo was initially happening, it was really hard not to give it the whole "not all men" narrative, because, hey, I'm a man, and #metoo felt like I was being bundled into the abuser category simply because of my sex.

But by saying "not all men", I'm effectively asking affected woman to stop, calm down, and positively re-enforce my ego because I feel attacked by your venting.

And that continues to make me part of the problem! So the irony of saying "not all men" is that you've re-enforced that, yes, in little ways, it really is all men.

On the other hand, we do feel attacked when we're "attacked" for things over which we have no control - sex, skin colour, gender identity, whatever.

It's complex. If you're truly trying to be inclusive and empathetic, I think the best thing you can do for someone in this position, even when you feel attacked yourself, is to say, "I hear you. How can I help?".

And that's hard enough to do in person for someone you truly love, let alone to near-strangers on the internet.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I had such high hopes for Wayland. Then nothing visibly happened for nearly a decade and only in the past year or so we're seeing talk of it becoming a thing (as an end-user - of course, lots of talk about it in development circles). Except, I run Nvidia, so that's pretty much that.

As for "Nvidia will support Wayland when their customer base demands it", well maybe. But I won't be demanding it - X works just fine here and I can't see any benefit in moving to Wayland. Things like "it's more secure" don't matter much on a single-user system and if you're telling me Wine is broken on Wayland, well Wine is way more important to me than an immature-but-somehow-more-secure graphics stack.

I want what works. Wayland feels like a solution a problem that doesn't really even apply today.

I thought it would give us seamless discrete card switching, better multi-monitor, smooth window scrolling everywhere, better switching into/out of fullscreen games, less tearing, more reliability. In fact, none of that has really happened. Indeed, Canonical found it less reliable and more likely to crash the whole session.

I see the point of it (cleaner code, more modern architecture), I just don't see why people care so much when it all boils down to is "it's cleaner behind the scenes". Especially when it actually brings major pain points to actually deal with - all the DEs having to support branches which support Wayland, no network support, no driver compatibility.

I feels weird to me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: slaapliedjeI'm not sure how the agenda is hidden, it's pretty plain. When contributors, even of software that isn't directly part of the source code (like the SC controller that just integrates with the kernel) decide to stop developing because of it, it's already caused damage. Whether intentional or not.

He paused development to make a statement. The price of progress I guess. Maybe he'll come around when this storm in a teacup blows over.

I find it sad that it's come down to this. Like during a war, I can see protestors. But when people are like 'I want you to respect that I don't want to be identified as a male or female'? It's like being okay with watching a child burn themselves and then they say "I want to burn myself, just accept me for burning myself, I identify as a burner." You still want to take the lighters away...

Being paranoid because you might use the wrong pronoun to address someone is rather kind of silly once you think about it...

Man, this complete lack of understanding of the CoC is depressing. The FUD, like this, well, it's just very difficult to keep dealing with.

So. The CoC says NOTHING about having to respect someone for having different gender identity. It says respect their contribution and be inclusive REGARDLESS of their gender identity (as one example). And as for the insulting comparison of having a gender identity being compared to a clueless child burning themselves? Yeah, I'm not even going to respond to that. And you want to take their lighters away, do you? What does that even mean? You want to "fix" people with a different gender identity to you? Jesus.

Since you don't appear to have read it - here it again: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct [External Link]

But why bother? The detractors, at this point, aren't even pretending to have read it. Just pure, unfiltered FUD. Next time one of you wants to extrapolate some conspiracy theory about why you, personally, don't like this CoC, at least have the guts to actually quote where you see the CoC tripping you up.

And if you're right? Great - let the Linux Foundation know. Submit a request into the Git repo and actually do something about it, instead of spreading FUD like this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: baccilus

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Dolus

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: DolusHere, is a little something that might blow your mind: I do not care. I do not care about a contributors sexuality, religion or political affiliation. If their contributions make Linux a better kernel, they should be allowed to contribute. That is how it should be. Instead we now have these neon haired puritans

So, not their sexuality, religion or political affiliation, but you do care about the colour of their hair.

That is about political 'leanings' as opposed to an official affiliation with any particular party. And that is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. There really is only one group wearing the neon hair right now. And it's not the anime community anymore. And I'm a bisexual deist, btw, so you can take everything else you were trying to imply here and shove it.

I'm about done with this community. Were it not for RMS and GNU taking a stand against this CoC, I'd be done with open source/Free Software in general. This community, on the whole, has been more than happy to go about mocking people like RMS and ESR all day for their lack of social graces FOR DECADES, but, suddenly, sexist bigoted bullies (you want proof, I'll be more than happy to link you to Coraline's Twitter posts) like Coraline Ada are lionized and protected from critical comments.

A year from now Linux is going to end up JUST like FreeBSD. Half of the community is going to pack up and leave because they were accused of being everything from a Nazi (I saved a screen cap, btw) to a *phobe of every variety JUST for believing this CoC is not *just* about playing nice. And this entire thread shows that to be true.

You really are going overboard here. Calm down.
a) Coraline is in no way involved in the Linux kernel. You are bringing her into this discussion when she has nothing to do with it beyond authoring the CoC. And if that's sufficient to destroy a project, you'd best tell Google, Microsoft, Apple, and thousands of Open Source projects that apparently they shouldn't be in existence because they use the same CoC. Let me repeat this: Coraline has _no_ involvement in the decisions made about the CoC as it relates to the Linux kernel. None.
b) RMS disapproves of codes of conduct in general, but otherwise this doesn't affect him. That's all he's said. Hardly "taking a stand".
c) It's really easy to have a discussion disagreeing without stating that half the community will be accused of being a Nazi (and actually, looking back, I don't think you were - but I do see how you might have felt that way). It's not about disagreeing that a few are having problems about with your comments - it's the way you're coming across (hint: not as reasonable). You're own words are aggressive. This will only result in people being aggressive back to you, and you don't then have the right to complain about it. Calm down, at least try be more reasoned, see where it gets you. Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you here.

Is there anything in the world that can convince you that this CoC has hidden agendas? What if people start getting called Nazis, racist, *phobes at the drop of a hat, and suffering on that account?
This CoC is wrapped in a noble wrapper of inclusiveness and diversity, and people who are supporting it without being SJW themselves, just refuse to unwrap it to see whats inside. Supporting this CoC seems like the virtuous thing to do. By defending it, one can feel good about oneself.

This specific CoC is in use by over forty thousand projects, including nearly every part of what you'd call your desktop. It's had four and a half years to develop.

So what makes you think that it will all go to hell in this one specific instance? What's unique about the kernel that this will suddenly result in people being named Nazis??

edit: spelling

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: anewsonPro CoC wants to change the norms around abusive behaviour and language in the kernel dev community (which goes right up to Torvalds). Con CoC is worried this empowers moderators to exclude developers who don't share their ideological views. The former goal is laudible, and the latter concern is justified (eg Johnathan Haidt's work on academia).

This CoC simply codifies the powers Linux maintainers have had all along. The "Con CoC" crowd seem to have trouble understanding this basic fact. Could be because they'd rather just keep fighting the scary SJW cabal that keeps taking away their toys.

Nope.
Read the CoC.
It does not center on abusive behavior. It focuses on vaguely-termed abusive persons. It does not tell people not to write racist/sexist/etc. posts. It tells they can not be racist/sexist/etc. Wording is important. This potentially empowers moderators to expel people based on their own personal choices in other domains, apart from the linux kernel. This is an enormous difference.

Hmmm. Where [External Link]? All the language in the Contibutor Covenant, the template CoC adopted by the Linux Foundation, focuses squarely on behaviours. There's no mention of "abusive persons" and no language that I personally find to be vague. Well, no actually there is one "catch all" phrase at the end which could be an issue: "Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting". I have no idea if the Linux Foundation left that in though.

So I'm curious how you see that this could possibly "empower moderators to expel people based on their own personal choices". The examples of behaviour are cut and dried. And there's only five of them? Read for yourself.

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

Seriously, have you read the right CoC, or have the Linux Foundation added a bunch of stuff that I don't know about??

EDIT: Nope, the Linux Foundation adopted the core template pretty much as is, as far as I can tell. [Read for yourself [External Link].]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I didn't recognise the still image in the offending post when I deleted it, but there were nazi overtones to it, so I removed it to be on the safe side and to help calm everyone down. Even if it was intended humorously (and I doubt that), it certainly wasn't taken that way and I agree with Purple Library Guy that it appeared to be fairly bad taste.

Dolus, one point of clarification - Coraline didn't write the Linux CoC. She wrote the "template" Code of Conduct document which anyone is free to use and modify as it suits their project and ethics. You can read more about it here: https://www.contributor-covenant.org [External Link]. As Mirv noted, it has over 40 thousand projects using it, and the whole thing is released under creative commons.

Hating on Coraline for writing it is a little like hating Tim Berners Lee when you don't like a website. Or hating Stallman when you find a distribution you don't like. They might have created the original, but their work was only a template for others to use and modify as they see fit.

If you have issues with the CoC, I'm sure the Linux Foundation has a way to raise those and hopefully a process to introduce changes as their use of this document evolves. No two projects are the same, no two communities are the same, so I'd expect that the Linux Foundation have a rocky ride ahead of them because a) this stuff isn't easy and b) they have a poor history of desperately needing a CoC and not having one, so there's a lot of heated debate on both sides.

As I said earlier, it's probably best to give this one a few months for the dust to settle.

[EDIT: One other point of clarification, while FreeDesktop (and all its sub-projects) adopted this CoC as its template around 18 months ago, FreeBSD went its own way and don't use this one at all]

EDIT2: This [fantastic and extremely short blog post [External Link] by Daniel Stone from April 2017 is worth a read - particularly those two sections where he notes that CoCs do NOT cause splits in the community, and where he notes that nearly every open source project of note on the planet uses them, barring (comically) the Linux Kernel!]

View this comment - View article - View full comments