Code, conflict, and conduct
| Benefits for LWN subscribers The primary benefit from subscribing to LWN is helping to keep us publishing, but, beyond that, subscribers get immediate access to all site content and access to a number of extra site features. Please sign up today! |
A couple of surprising things happened in the kernel community on September 16: Linus Torvalds announced that he was taking a break from kernel development to focus on improving his own behavior, and the longstanding "code of conflict" was replaced with a code of conduct based on the Contributor Covenant. Those two things did not quite come packaged as a set, but they are clearly not unrelated. It is a time of change for the kernel project; there will be challenges to overcome but, in the end, less may change than many expect or fear.
Some time off
Torvalds has always been known as a harsh critic; what perhaps fewer people have seen is that he has always been willing to be just as harsh toward himself when (in his opinion) the situation warranted it. He has seemingly come to the conclusion that some self-criticism is indeed called for now:
Torvalds went on to say that he will be taking a break from kernel work at
least through
the end of the 4.19 development cycle — which should come in around four
weeks. Greg Kroah-Hartman will be handling pull requests during this time;
he has already done a number of pulls as of this writing.
Torvalds, meanwhile, will "get some assistance on how to understand
people’s emotions and respond appropriately
". He expressed a strong
wish to continue leading the kernel project once things settle, and said
that he was "looking forward
" to meeting with the maintainer
community at the Maintainers Summit at the end of October.
As for what brought this moment about, we may never know for sure. He
talks about being confronted by members of the community, but people have
been telling him for years that some things should change. If somebody did
get through to him this time, they did it privately. In any case, we seem
to have arrived at, as Torvalds put it, one of "the inflection points where
development flow and behavior [change]
". Sometimes,
perhaps, it really is just a matter of waiting for the right moment when
change becomes possible.
The response to this announcement on the net as a whole has, as one might imagine, covered a wide spectrum. Some people like Torvalds just as he is and do not welcome any change, while others are quick to say that he is beyond redemption and probably cannot change. Most people, though, seem to recognize an individual confronting some internal pain and are waiting hopefully to see what comes next. We wish him the best and look forward to his return.
A new code of conduct
Critics of the kernel community have spent years calling for the establishment of a proper code of conduct. The adoption of a "code of conflict" in 2015 did little to mollify those critics, many of whom saw it as, at best, an empty gesture that would change little. Judging three years later whether they were right is harder than one might think. There is little in the way of hard evidence that the code of conflict brought about any changes in behavior. On the other hand, the kernel community continues to grow, and most of the approximately 4,000 people who contribute each year have a fine experience. The web sites that specialize in publicizing inflammatory messages found in the mailing lists have had to dig harder than in the past. Perhaps the code of conflict helped to moderate behavior a bit, or perhaps we are just seeing the slow, long-term trend toward professionalism that has been evident in the community for at least two decades.
Attentive readers will note that my name appears as one of the signoffs on the patch adding the new code of conduct; they might wonder why I chose to do so despite my beliefs that (1) the situation is not as bad as many like to portray it, and (2) things are getting better anyway. Over the last weekend, I was informed that there was a window of opportunity to change the code and given the chance to comment on the new one. How or why this window came to be is still not entirely clear; I did not know about Torvalds's plans until I read the announcement along with everybody else. I saw the new code as a way of encouraging the community's slow drift toward greater civility. It was not the code I would have written, but I agree with the principles expressed there and believe that it can be adopted and used in the pragmatic manner in which the community approaches most problems.
One of the strongest criticisms against the old code of conflict is that it did not enumerate the types of behavior that are unwelcome. The new one cannot be criticized on that account. Such laundry lists of misbehavior can leave a bad taste in the mouth; that can be especially true if, like me, you are an older, run-of-the-mill white male; it is easy to look at a list like that and say "everybody is protected except me". It can look, rightly or wrongly, like a threatening change pushed by people with a hostile agenda.
But the purpose of such a code is not to threaten anybody; indeed, it is the opposite. It is a statement that we all have the right to be who we are and participate in the community as equals without having to contend with bullying, abuse, and worse. Posting a patch should not be a frightening experience. The code of conduct is a way of saying that, if we drive away contributors with a hostile environment, we don't just impose a personal cost on those contributors; we also make ourselves weaker as a community. Not even the kernel community, which still attracts at least 200 first-time contributors in each development cycle, is so rich that it can afford to lose talent in that way.
I can also understand a hostility to rules. I grew up in a small Wyoming town that had a sign reading — literally — "Population: 35". There is little need for formal rules in such a place; there are no strangers and everybody knows that they have to get along for many years into the future. Every such town has some eccentric and difficult personalities; people learn how to cope with them.
Cities do not run the same way, though; cities need rules. There are too many people coming from too many different backgrounds to just get along without some sort of framework. The kernel community is the free-software equivalent of a city at this point. It has grown hugely, and is divided into a number of neighborhoods, some of which are rather friendlier than others. Many bad experiences reported by developers are associated with crossing into a new neighborhood and unwittingly violating one of the norms in place there. There is a place for some city-wide rules on how we deal with each other so that such bad experiences become much rarer.
The early O'Reilly books about Linux, including mine, used a wild-west cover theme for a reason. But the kernel community is not the wild frontier that it was back then; it has become a far more disciplined, professional, and even welcoming place. In the end, my hope in signing off on the new code of conduct was that it would drive home the point that we are no longer the wild west, that it would encourage further progress toward civility and professionalism, and that it would help the kernel community continue to scale into the future. Those of us who work on the kernel tend to be in it for the long term; we want the community ten years from now to be better than what we have now, because we expect to still be a part of it.
Hazards
One need not look far to find predictions of doom in many flavors. Some, seemingly including the author of the Community Covenant, think that the kernel community may be a lost cause. There is, among some people, a sort of hostility toward the kernel community that brings a special toxicity of its own; there is little to be done about that. On the other hand, plenty of people — generally not those with a lot of contributions to their credit — claim that the adoption of a code of conduct will force developers out and be the beginning of the end of the kernel project. Now that the "social justice warriors" have taken over, the real developers will flee and it will all collapse into a heap.
That outcome seems unlikely, but there will indeed be challenges in adopting this code in such a large community. The nature of kernel development requires relatively high levels of pushback on code submissions, many of which will not be merged in anything resembling their current form. It attracts passionate developers with strong opinions who do not always understand the need to create a kernel that works for a huge and diverse set of users. It attracts developers who are trying to solve problems above their technical ability — perhaps at the direction of their employers. Kernel developers care deeply about the kernel itself and are unwilling to stand by idly if they see changes that threaten to make the kernel worse. And the kernel, perhaps more than any other project, is surrounded by a vocal community of onlookers with opinions on every move the community makes. These are all the makings of a relatively high level of conflict.
The community as a whole will have to find a way to implement the code that handles the community's inherent conflicts without collateral damage. It is thus unhelpful that it was adopted so abruptly, without a community-wide discussion; that will not sit well with some developers. It would have almost certainly been better to go more slowly, and involve at least the invitees to the Maintainers Summit; on the other hand, any public discussion would have had a high probability of being an unpleasant experience for everybody involved.
It seems almost certain that some people will try to test the boundaries of this code and its enforcement mechanisms in an attempt to show which effects it will (or will not) have. Neither the boundaries nor the consequences for crossing them are particularly well specified at this point. Some parts of the code do not entirely seem to fit; it's not clear that the kernel project can even have an "official social media account" or an "appointed representative", for example. Those who end up enforcing this code will have to handle complaints with great care, protecting members of the community while fending off those who might, as some seem to fear, attempt to use the code to further an unrelated agenda.
The written code was changed with a single patch; implementing that code may be a rather longer and harder process. Like the kernel's out-of-memory killer, the code of conduct might be seen as a collection of heuristics that never quite converge on what is really wanted.
That said, the chances are that what will emerge from the dust will be
something that looks like the same kernel community that has achieved so
much in the last 27 years. Only hopefully it will be a bit friendlier, a
bit more diverse, and much stronger. This could indeed be one of those
inflection points mentioned by Torvalds in his announcement; the kernel has
always emerged from those episodes stronger than ever. It is hard to see
any reasons why this time should be different.
| Index entries for this article | |
|---|---|
| Kernel | Development model/Developer conduct |
(Log in to post comments)
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 18, 2018 21:31 UTC (Tue) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 18, 2018 22:07 UTC (Tue) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link]
This CoC has been adopted by numerous other projects, so examples of departures and reduction in code quality should be easy to come by, if that occurs. The Django project is only one I know of that publishes stats, and there does not appear to be a mass departure due to bans from the CoC.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 18, 2018 22:21 UTC (Tue) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link]
Sometimes, it looks like we're replacing in-your-face incivility with knife-in-the-back incivility.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 0:52 UTC (Wed) by jerojasro (guest, #98169) [Link]
Indeed, what about code quality? I'm a longtime user of Django, and in my opinion its quality has not decreased; it has not affected me as a user.
I don't follow the Django development discussions. Maybe you do, and have noticed such decline/evidences for it? A link would be welcome, I'm most curious.
The only complaint about Django is about it being bloated, and/or slow. That might be true, but as far as I know, that's not a consequence of adopting a CoC; it has always been Django's philosophy to offer a fully integrated environment. The Django community has banned 3 people, total, in 3 years. I really doubt that has an impact on the project at any level. But I would welcome any evidence to the contrary.
...
All in all, the whole "now that there is CoC in place the project will lose in technical quality, top contributors who are brash/abrasive/etc. will leave" gives these "people who might leave because of the CoC" too much (technical) credit, too little (emotional) credit in their capabilities to learn and understand and empathize with their peers, and also fails to consider the (lost) contributions of people who have been driven away by the unwelcoming environment in the kernel community.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 7:22 UTC (Wed) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]
However I don't think this document as written attempts to suppress that at all, it merely says that you really shouldn't troll and swear and ad-hominem while doing that.
You could try to suggest that such documents correlate with an attempt to suppress public discussion of greivances, but I would challenge that you really need evidence to make such claims.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 13:44 UTC (Wed) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link]
Oh, yeah - one other case comes to mind - the recent Lerna license flap, where the CoC was actually used to kick the guy out who changed the licensing.
I'm not sure how the minor flap in the Python community over the push to eliminate the terms "master" and "slave" is going - I found it interesting to see this arise once more after the first time it came around in reference to PATA IDE drives. Still, someone was apparently pushing against it on "diversity" grounds - they have something against the BDSM community? That seems a remarkably undiverse definition of diversity.
I'm just really not sure of the utility of these things. They just seem like one more set of rules to be used to play "gotcha" with.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 15:29 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
Read the recent article Trying to get STACKLEAK into the kernel for an example of Linus' behavior causing problems. People who are trying to solve tough problems in contentious areas shouldn't have deal with torrents of personal abuse, and rigorous code review does not require it.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 16:01 UTC (Wed) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 18:02 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 18:13 UTC (Wed) by jerojasro (guest, #98169) [Link]
Might look apalling, but I see it as "yay, more people collaborating".
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 21, 2018 2:43 UTC (Fri) by jbicha (subscriber, #75043) [Link]
See this and this which are more abusive than simple Monty Python jokes.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 21, 2018 16:29 UTC (Fri) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 24, 2018 15:55 UTC (Mon) by JFlorian (guest, #49650) [Link]
Mean what you say, say what you mean. Be strict on your output, forgiving on your input.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 24, 2018 16:19 UTC (Mon) by jbicha (subscriber, #75043) [Link]
It's possible to be direct and obvious without cursing and without saying thing like "have you learnt *nothing*?"
I believe the last 2 sentences of this email demonstrate emotionally abusive language.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 27, 2018 18:30 UTC (Thu) by marmalade (guest, #127517) [Link]
That's not emotionally abusive, it's direct. In a huge project people need to be told "no" sometimes in a manner that lets them know it's not okay.
I've seen people in the workplace who don't learn because nobody is willing to be "mean". Sometimes you need to be "mean". Feeling bad is part of growing up and improving yourself. It's incentive. If everyone just tells you "it's okay" nothing changes, you just coast along thinking that it's okay if you mess up or do something wrong or stupid, because there's no consequence.
Negative emotions are not to be dispensed with. You *should* feel bad sometimes. It's a critical part of the human experience.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 27, 2018 21:08 UTC (Thu) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
> I'm, disappointed in the whole feature, but I'm also tired of having
> to go and even look for these things.
>
> Then actually *finding* them makes me just pissed off.
I think these are appropriate, not abusive. They are "I" statements. Linus. it talking about how he feels. This is always a reasonable thing to do. If hearing about Linus' feelings makes you upset, then that really is your problem, not his.
The previous sentence:
> Dammit, have you learnt *nothing*?
Isn't an "I" statement, so it would probably have been better to leave it out. However it is phrased as a question, not as an attack, so it should not be too hard to read it objectively, and respond to it accordingly.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 27, 2018 22:08 UTC (Thu) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
Honestly that line seems like one of the most hurtful things I've seen cited in these comments. The implication is clearly that Kay *hadn't* learned anything, out of negligence or stupidity or whatever.
I don't know whether Linus can distinguish hurtful things from non-hurtful things (his statement about stepping away "to learn about human emotions" suggests that he thinks he can't), but it's clear that many people in this space lack this ability (I don't mean you, just in general). It's interesting to read comments like these because helps me, and hopefully others, to see what this distinction is, because it's often unclear over text and across cultures.
It's also interesting to see mainstream reporters, whose job it is to communicate, get this wrong. For example, I think counting f-bombs or slurs is a total red herring, and I also think any derogatory terms about *code* rather than *people* are fine. (Though in fairness, the latter point is somewhat unique to open source development -- it is definitely not true in most cultures that you can criticize someone's work, even on purely technical grounds, and expect it to be non-personal.)
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Oct 2, 2018 6:50 UTC (Tue) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
>
> Honestly that line seems like one of the most hurtful things I've seen cited in these comments.
Thanks - that's really valuable and on-point. I genuinely didn't think that line would be very hurtful at all, but clearly not everyone shares my opinion.
This re-enforces the importance of not saying anything personal, even if I think it should be harmless (address the code, not the coder).
Hopefully it is OK to say personal things when they are positive: "You did a good job, thanks!" ????
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 19:16 UTC (Wed) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]
Of course, the contemptuous (and contemptible) responses to that information merely reinforced its veracity.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 19:44 UTC (Wed) by mtaht (guest, #11087) [Link]
Reason % agreed
Developing against an older kernel 54%
Work depends on out-of-tree code 50%
It's too hard 45%
Unable to test 41%
Employer does not allow time 40%
Patch not good enough 35%
Afraid of rejection 33%
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 21, 2018 2:12 UTC (Fri) by tedd (subscriber, #74183) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 21, 2018 14:10 UTC (Fri) by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492) [Link]
"Good enough to work", "good enough to ship" and "good enough to be included upstream" are three different technical thresholds. It is quite possible that many or most people "afraid of rejection" are aware that their code isn't up to the required quality.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 23, 2018 3:30 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]
"Good enough to work", "good enough to ship" and "good enough to be included upstream" are three different technical thresholds.
Don't forget "good enough to be accepted by whoever's in charge of upstream," because that's not the same as "good enough to be included upstream." A potential contributor may be afraid that his perfectly good work would not be acknowledged as such. Thus, it could be a truly emotional "afraid" based on lack of validation by another human being as well as a practical "afraid" just meaning you don't want to risk wasting your time.
I had many patches I thought were great rejected by various projects - some just ignored, others explicitly rejected, which led to a decision many years ago just to keep my code to myself from now on.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 20:00 UTC (Wed) by excors (subscriber, #95769) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 21, 2018 17:34 UTC (Fri) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link]
12. Please think about a single change that you made to the Linux kernel, that you did NOT submit upstream. Please answer the following questions to describe your reasons for NOT submitting your change:
...
15. My change was not good enough to submit to upstream (e.g. it was a quick hack or workaround, not suitable for upstream).
Strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree
16. I was afraid my patch would be rejected.
Strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 7:22 UTC (Wed) by alan (guest, #4018) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 18, 2018 22:35 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 18, 2018 22:40 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 12:12 UTC (Wed) by sml (guest, #75391) [Link]
> the code falls apart because many of the key developers found themselves on the wrong side of the code
When this happens, lets debate it. Until then, stop spreading FUD.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 13:46 UTC (Wed) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 14:28 UTC (Wed) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]
I posit that you engage in bad faith. (And may I recommend looking up “whataboutism”?)
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 14:36 UTC (Wed) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 22, 2018 13:31 UTC (Sat) by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164) [Link]
The guidelines were used once to push someone out, which had an amazingly positive effect: that person was clearly keeping many others from contributing with their bad behaviour. In hindsight I should have acted far sooner and in the future, when encountering a toxic person, I certainly will. Heck, I have, though mostly I could fix issues by a stern talking-to rather than kicking. But having a CoC to point to and as stick behind the door is very useful. I know several people who don't attend events without one and while as boring white dude I never bothered to look myself if an event had one I fully support that.
Talk to community managers. I bet you won't find one who thinks a CoC does anything other than grow the community.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 21, 2018 23:54 UTC (Fri) by rwm (subscriber, #104883) [Link]
https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/general-di...
More things will inevitably bubble up in future. It'll be interesting times.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 22, 2018 13:03 UTC (Sat) by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452) [Link]
If anything, it's perhaps a matter of Twitter terms of use; but my guess is that they're okay with it. They're okay with nuclear threats anyway.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 22, 2018 15:03 UTC (Sat) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]
The important point is that this is not a CoC complaint in the first place. The person is complaining that there is somebody on the TAB who they surmise cannot deal with certain types of (hypothetical, so far) CoC complaints fairly. This contention is debatable, but it does not invalidate the concept of having the TAB handle CoC complaints in principle. If nothing else, the TAB member in question (who is known as a reasonable sort of guy) could recuse himself from dealing with that particular type of complaint if and when any specimens actually come in, and they could be handled by the remainder of the TAB. If, in the longer term, enough people object to his presence on the TAB on these grounds they could simply elect somebody else when his seat comes up the next time.
Now of course one can discuss whether the TAB is best placed to handle CoC complaints to begin with, but it's fairly obvious that the TAB ended up as arbiters of CoC disputes because the CoC template had a blank to fill in and the TAB was the only body that was immediately available to fill that blank. For all the criticism concerning its (current) composition, the TAB has at least been elected rather than arbitrarily appointed, even if it may not be the most appropriate institution for the job in the long term. But I wouldn't consider its role cast in stone.
As a matter of principle, it would probably be better to have a specialised “CoC oversight committee” that is trusted by the kernel development community to adjudicate disputes fairly, but it is by no means clear who should even be allowed to vote in an election for that body if “whoever is attending the kernel summit” is not what is wanted as the electorate. How many lines of code must one have contributed to the current Linux source tree in order to be eligible to vote? (Actually conducting the vote once you know who gets to vote wouldn't be a huge problem; the Debian project does it at least once every year.)
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 18, 2018 22:04 UTC (Tue) by aaro (guest, #81996) [Link]
Where (mailing list?) this happened and who were given a chance to comment it?
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 18, 2018 22:19 UTC (Tue) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link]
We'll see...
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 18, 2018 22:28 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]
Um...if you look at the patch adding the code, you will see that it carries Linus's signoff. Did you really think people would try to sneak in something like that behind his back?I did not know it at the time, but what made the period "special", as far as I can tell, is that Linus wanted to have a new CoC in place when he made his announcement.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 22:28 UTC (Wed) by HenrikH (subscriber, #31152) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 21, 2018 18:24 UTC (Fri) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 21, 2018 19:43 UTC (Fri) by HenrikH (subscriber, #31152) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 18, 2018 22:31 UTC (Tue) by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452) [Link]
commit 8a104f8b5867c682d994ffa7a74093c54469c11f
Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
AuthorDate: Sat Sep 15 20:26:44 2018 +0200
Commit: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
CommitDate: Sun Sep 16 11:42:28 2018 -0700
Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 0:51 UTC (Wed) by klbrun (subscriber, #45083) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 7:26 UTC (Wed) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 18:18 UTC (Wed) by klbrun (subscriber, #45083) [Link]
Comment period
Posted Sep 20, 2018 6:13 UTC (Thu) by Nemo_bis (subscriber, #88187) [Link]
It seems reasonable to conclude that the TAB was informed of the change beforehand, which is appropriate because otherwise they may end up having a responsibility they did not agree to. (Note, the description page conspicuously lacks any mention of how this body is formed or renewed.)
TAB formation
Posted Sep 20, 2018 14:02 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]
The TAB is selected by a vote of participants at the kernel summit; the next such election will be happening in Vancouver in November. 50% of the seats are chosen (for two-year terms) each year.
Follow through will be key
Posted Sep 18, 2018 22:38 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]
I think that Linus's personal behavior will be far more important than a written code of conduct in determining how the community works in practice. No matter what it says, the code of conduct is meaningless without enforcement. If Linus comes back from his time away with a real commitment to making the kernel community a more welcoming place, things will change. Even if he back slides, if people can successfully call him out for it, things will change. If he comes back and maintains the same old behavior, the code of conduct will turn out to be just another failed experiment that resulted in some dead code.
Follow through will be key
Posted Sep 19, 2018 1:54 UTC (Wed) by daniel (guest, #3181) [Link]
Follow through will be key
Posted Sep 19, 2018 8:07 UTC (Wed) by bnastic (subscriber, #86682) [Link]
I do not expect him to return a “new man”. I do not expect a 49 year old to simply acquire new personality over night. I also don’t expect him to stay with the Linux Foundation, but I’d love to be proven wrong on this.
Follow through will be key
Posted Sep 19, 2018 13:08 UTC (Wed) by rweikusat2 (subscriber, #117920) [Link]
Follow through will be key
Posted Sep 19, 2018 19:14 UTC (Wed) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]
I do not expect him to return a “new man”.
I don't expect him to return a new man, at least in the sense that his behavior will completely change. But there's a lot of space between completely changed and completely unchanged. The biggest question is how sincerely he wants to change. I'm sure there will be plenty of people on LKML willing to remind him when he slips up. But the question is how he'll respond when that happens. If he's really committed to changing, he'll admit his mistakes and try to do better. If he changes his mind and decides things are fine as they are, he'll resist.
Follow through will be key
Posted Sep 20, 2018 4:51 UTC (Thu) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link]
Outside of computer conferences, I suck at social norms. I have to constantly be aware and think of what to say before saying it, where others just know how to act. My wife will poke me if I slip and start speaking without analyzing how it will be interpreted by others. I've gotten much better at knowing how to communicate without being offensive. I'm still working on it, and I have more to go.
Point being, it's not about being a "new man", it's about actually wanting to be better. The "old Linus" didn't appear to care about changing his behavior. The "new Linus" does. That's a HUGE difference.
Follow through will be key
Posted Sep 24, 2018 2:22 UTC (Mon) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
A *lot* of what Linus says and does ranges between good and excellent.
The number of times he uses inappropriate language are relatively few - but they have an effect out of proportion to their size (which is expected given Linus' power and position).
So Linus doesn't need to become a "new man", he just needs a little bit of a shave - file down those few rough edges a bit.
Conflict is necessary
Posted Sep 19, 2018 3:41 UTC (Wed) by Frogging101 (guest, #113180) [Link]
(ah well.)
Posted Sep 19, 2018 11:14 UTC (Wed) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]
says who, exactly?
(ah well.)
Posted Sep 20, 2018 5:05 UTC (Thu) by Rudd-O (guest, #61155) [Link]
In practice, I've seen CoCs like the one we are discussing be used to marginalize and eject good coders, and the very people doing that sort of thing were violating the CoC with their own behavior... but don't we all know that the rules don't apply to the SJW mobs.
(ah well.)
Posted Sep 20, 2018 5:21 UTC (Thu) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]
Then I'm sure you'll be able to provide a long list.
(ah well.)
Posted Sep 23, 2018 0:19 UTC (Sun) by netmonk (guest, #101961) [Link]
"
Everyone always says CoCs are tools to ban people with differing political opinions but no one is ever able to find an example. You can't just make stuff up to get mad at.
Opal, attempt to witch-hunt dev out of the project over personal opinion thwarted by maintainer being open-minded: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
The entire GitHub Code of Conduct Drama: http://archive.is/JzOoj https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3g8ehh/github_put...
Django attempt to impose "Contributor Covenant" over project for rejected pull requests from "People of Color", then labeling him an ist and saying they'll go to management: https://archive.is/dgilk
As a suggestion I recommend adopting the Contributor Code of Conduct to ensure everybody's contributions are accepted regarless of their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, religion, height, place of origin, etc, etc, etc. As a white straight male and lead of this trending repository, your adoption of this Code of Conduct will send a loud and clear message that inclusion is a primary objective of the Django community and of the software development community in general.
Ruby attempt to impose the Contributor Covenant over the project, founder Matz thankfully aware enough to reject it, here's his explanation: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#note-95 Following that attempts by Contributor Covenant to get Matz separated from "Community Management": https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/690334282607378432 and insults year later: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1029170073938944000 Thankfully he knows what's up: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041701099378540544
PHP attempt to impose Contributor Covenant on the project that thankfully fails after a few skirmishes and a few great explanations why: http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/6214
the Contributor Covenant, and any other codes of conduct originating in Social Justice, are to be opposed out of hand, both in PHP, and in any other place they are suggested
Node.js attempt to remove a contributor over sharing an article on Twitter: https://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free... http://archive.is/h6lem
Most recently Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article. As a perceived leader in the project, it can be difficult for outsiders to separate Rod’s opinions from that of the project. Knowing the space he is participating in and the values of our community, Rod should have predicted the kind of response this tweet received.
After lengthy attempts to defend himself: https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6... he barely survives a vote triggered to throw him out of the project, activists are pissed: https://twitter.com/ag_dubs/status/899749156209664000 After the Kangoroo court is over, people point out said activists broke said "Code of Conduct" in much more severe ways, no action is taken: http://archive.is/7cL5s
Drupal contributor is thrown out of the project for his personal sex life: https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/drupal-larry-garfield-gor.... after activists in its "Diversity & Inclusion group" set up dozen pages political dossier of supposedly "problematic" comments he might have made on Twitter/Reddit or his Blog: https://www.scribd.com/document/350215190/Crell
And now it's the turn for Linux. This is what this and similar "Code of Conducts" are designed to do, and explicitly so by its creator. Create political Drama and arguments and get outside activists to start witch-hunts and Social media/media shitstorms against developers with private political opinions they dislike. It's up to the Linux community to decide if that's what they want or they'd rather keep coding.
They're also implicitly anti-meritocratic and such language was embedded within the first versions of it, for instance "pervasive cult of meritocracy": https://twitter.com/dashorst/status/534473049647898624 and even if it's not explicit anymore, the intent of its creator is clear: https://postmeritocracy.org/
"
"
The creator of the CoC worked at GitHub for a year, was mostly hired on board to signal about "diversity", but got let go about a year later and triggering more Drama: https://where.coraline.codes/blog/my-year-at-github/
Which also triggered various "GitHub is sexist" articles upon departure:
https://www.businessinsider.de/fired-github-programmer-co...
https://www.themarysue.com/antisocial-coding-github/
While working at GitHub someone actually tried applying the same standards that were applied to others in past incidents described above to the CoC creator, which also led to nothing aside from the issue being closed by Ehmke with a passive aggressive explanation: http://archive.is/kdw13
If you want to know what this person is about, there's no better than from the horse's mouth, this extended Twitter rant from about a month ago is the pure distilled essence of what is going on: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1029161113848557569
Nonetheless I'm sure there are still enough "allies" inside GitHub to try and push this and argue the pretense position of this being about "civility", "welcoming" or "safety" instead of what it is actually used for as explained best here: http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/6214
"
(ah well.)
Posted Sep 23, 2018 10:20 UTC (Sun) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]
Django attempt to impose "Contributor Covenant" over project for rejected pull requests from "People of Color", then labeling him an ist and saying they'll go to management: https://archive.is/dgilk
Just for the record, this has nothing to do with the Django project (a distinction that ESR himself was already careful to muddle when he pointed to that issue). The project in question here is awesome-django, which is basically a list of useful Django resources that is quite distinct from the Django project itself.
If anything, the Django project is evidence that it is possible to produce best-of-breed software in the presence of a code of conduct that is broadly similar to the one Linux has recently adopted.
On code reviews...
Posted Sep 19, 2018 4:45 UTC (Wed) by bentley (guest, #93468) [Link]
It seems that people often use code reviews and technical disagreement as an example of what might stress a CoC, or cause conflict that violates it. IMO, if a person can't review code or have technical disagreements without harassing somebody or creating an exclusionary environment, they shouldn't be reviewing code or having technical discussions.
There's a big difference between "This code isn't up to our standards, here's what you can do to fix it" or "I don't have time to help you fix this code, please look here<link> for guidance" and "this code is bad (and you should feel bad)".
On code reviews...
Posted Sep 19, 2018 7:30 UTC (Wed) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]
I raise this because I think this is an area that needs improvement, industry-wide. The Linux kernel discussion isn't mostly full of the kind of condescension and de-valuation that is more common.
On code reviews...
Posted Sep 19, 2018 12:44 UTC (Wed) by pj (subscriber, #4506) [Link]
Everyone is fighting a secret battle you know nothing about.
On code reviews...
Posted Sep 19, 2018 16:06 UTC (Wed) by daniel (guest, #3181) [Link]
On code reviews...
Posted Sep 19, 2018 19:53 UTC (Wed) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]
On code reviews...
Posted Sep 19, 2018 16:30 UTC (Wed) by bentley (guest, #93468) [Link]
OTOH I'm often hesitant to contribute to open source projects since I've seen enough examples of maintainers saying "this is stupid". I'm sure most big projects won't respond that way to a new contributor, but seen small, one-person projects reject pull requests in a needlessly curt manner.
On code reviews...
Posted Sep 20, 2018 4:03 UTC (Thu) by JdGordy (subscriber, #70103) [Link]
Either you're one of the good devs that actually learn, or your reviewers are too soft. I try to give new hires the benefit of the doubt and give them plenty of leniecy on reviews at the beginning, and a good chunk of them actually do learn, but then there is the people who constantly need to be reminded of coding standards, and common patterns and worse, those reviews quickly go from "remind yourself of the coding standard" to "FIX", "FFS you know better", "go over the whole patch, im not wasting my time on the important bits when you cant even get formatting correct".
My understanding of Linus (as an outsider) was that he was pretty easy going with new people who honestly were trying and only went aggressive with people who (in his opinion) should have known better, and if thats accurate then I'm guilty of the same. In the corporate world this ideally ends up with being managed out but you cant really do that in the OSS world.
On code reviews...
Posted Sep 20, 2018 5:54 UTC (Thu) by Nemo_bis (subscriber, #88187) [Link]
Moral leadership works better when the leader shows they're ready to admit mistakes and improve. This positive example by Linus makes me hope he will return better and stronger.
It's certainly a positive model for decisionmakers who don't admit mistakes or, even when admitting mistakes, don't ever show any sign of self-correction (e.g. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180914/10552840641/gu...).
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 6:23 UTC (Wed) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665) [Link]
I take your point about the "laundry lists of misbehavior", but the list in this CoC is pretty short. More to the point, as a fellow white bloke of a certain age, I can't find anything in this list of example unacceptable behaviours that I would be happy to be subjected to. If taking more care that I don't subject anyone else to such things is the price for not being subjected to them myself, I'm happy to pay it.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 9:18 UTC (Wed) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link]
K3n.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 16:38 UTC (Wed) by jkingweb (subscriber, #113039) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 19:57 UTC (Wed) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]
Thankfully, it's not very hard to learn about. It should only remain a problem for those who don't really want to understand what it means.
Also some people fear issues like this being raised in bad faith, and potentially use confirmation bias to convince themselves it's usually in bad faith. I haven't really seen that happen in my personal reality though.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 6:34 UTC (Wed) by sspans (guest, #43276) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 7:13 UTC (Wed) by blackwood (guest, #44174) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 9:10 UTC (Wed) by jjstwerff (subscriber, #4082) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 13:14 UTC (Wed) by knan (subscriber, #3940) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 21:59 UTC (Wed) by johannbg (guest, #65743) [Link]
It's just something that we ( we as in the entire human race ) have tendency to inadvertently do with matters we hold dear to us ( as in we have a hard time staying neutral ).
Then he ( as in blackwood ) proposes someone else with less ties to the kernel community should cover those articles which is a perfectly valid point so I fail to see what axes are being grinded in his comment.
Bias
Posted Sep 19, 2018 23:20 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]
So this is obviously a personal story; I told it in the first person — something I rarely do on LWN — for a reason. That said, I tried to be complete and fair. If you find it biased, could you please help us to round it out by explaining what that bias is and where I failed to tell things properly? I think we would all appreciate that.
Bias
Posted Sep 20, 2018 7:12 UTC (Thu) by yuuyuu (guest, #127230) [Link]
https://mobile.twitter.com/danvet/status/1042306430768824321
Bias
Posted Sep 20, 2018 21:34 UTC (Thu) by jonbayer (guest, #36490) [Link]
Bias
Posted Sep 24, 2018 2:28 UTC (Mon) by tterribe (guest, #66972) [Link]
Let's start with this paragraph:
> The adoption of a "code of conflict" in 2015 did little to mollify
> those critics, many of whom saw it as, at best, an empty gesture
> that would change little. Judging three years later whether they
> were right is harder than one might think. There is little in the
> way of hard evidence that the code of conflict brought about any
> changes in behavior.
The last sentence here seems to contradict the one immediately before it, making it sound like you just didn't want to admit that the critics were right. It is not until you read much further that you can figure out that what you were actually trying to say is that there may be *indirect* evidence that behaviors have been changing, but by that point the impression has already been made with the reader. The fact that the key word was "hard" was not obvious (especially since it was never explicitly contrasted with an antonym). I think this is mostly an editorial criticism, in that there was nothing wrong what you were trying to say, just that it was hard for me as a reader to figure out what that was.
> On the other hand, the kernel community continues to grow, and most
> of the approximately 4,000 people who contribute each year have a
> fine experience.
These read like almost classical logical fallacies. Yes, the community continues to grow, but is that because of or in spite of its policies and cultural norms? No one has ever argued that Linux is not a successful project. It is also not surprising that the majority of the active contributors would not have issues to complain about, just due to survivor bias. The ones who did not have a fine experience would leave.
But even beyond that point, to people like me who are not actually members of the kernel community and just follow along here on LWN because it is technically interesting, the majority of the discussion one has heard about that community in recent years is from those who were *not* having a fine experience. Now, maybe there is an argument there to be made that this has been sensationalized to generate headlines, but to state that "we're a big, happy, 4,000-person family just having a fine time" with no evidence to back that up makes me think, "Wow, this person has a very different image of that community than I do." A different image is okay (yours may be the right one! you are part of that community after all and I am not), but to leave out any justification for that viewpoint is to suggest that you either don't know what other people are saying about your community or that you don't want to acknowledge what they are saying. Even justifying this by drawing from your own personal experiences would have helped (since this article is told from a personal point of view, as you say). I would summarize this as a case of "telling instead of showing" being unconvincing.
> The web sites that specialize in publicizing inflammatory messages
> found in the mailing lists have had to dig harder than in the past.
I didn't even know such websites existed (though it does not surprise me), but given the opposite impression I have received, that reporting on these issues is more common than ever (outside of LWN), some justification for this claim would have helped, also.
But I think the bigger point, to me, is that regardless of how many incidences of Linus going postal on some poor contributor there actually are, the real issue has always been that he felt *entitled* to behave in that way, and that most of the other people in leadership positions within the Linux community were willing to back him up on that, or at least unwilling to challenge him on it. Nobody is perfect. I've had people call me out when I have acted badly in my own communities on occasion, but the difference is that those people were in positions of authority when they did it, and that I believed that they were right to do so. The "it's not that bad and it's getting better" line sounds like an abdication of the responsibility of those with actual power in the community to protect those who don't have it (as *people*), and that doesn't sit well with me, even if the line itself is true. You make many other excellent points in the article, and it was by no means one-sided. These were just some of the portions that I struggled with.
Ultimately, the announcement that Linus no longer feels so entitled is a hugely positive development even if it results in no immediate changes in how the community works on a day-to-day level. I hope that in the long term the Linux community will find ways to achieve its technical excellence by growing and nurturing its members, and I hope that it will set a positive example for other communities struggling with the same issues. Like it or not, as one of the largest and most successful open source projects, Linux as a whole is also in a position of leadership in the broader community, and that is how leaders should behave.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 9:01 UTC (Wed) by jpfrancois (subscriber, #65948) [Link]
You can be prefectly frank and to the point AND act in a benevolent manner. There is no such thing as "ear candy".
But the opposite is quite true, adding bad words or presonnal attack will just hide what you truly have to say.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 20, 2018 12:46 UTC (Thu) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]
Linus now enters a behavior modification loop.
Hopefully this loop terminates, instead of having an infinite "you haven't been swell enough" condition.
We sometimes seem beset with trolls going short on society, or something.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 11:06 UTC (Wed) by kay (subscriber, #1362) [Link]
Its simply more explicit on unwanted behavoir and more "modern".
Compared to other COC, e.g. , https://lwn.net/Articles/765332/, its simple and straightforward.
Ym2C
Baby-sitting bad behaviors
Posted Sep 19, 2018 19:48 UTC (Wed) by mchehab (subscriber, #41156) [Link]
> IMHO there is no big practical difference between old and new version of COC.
There is: the old CoC inputs penalties to the violators of the CoC. With the new one, maintainers become responsible for baby-sitting other behaviors:
Maintainers who do not ... enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project’s leadership.
It gets worse:
applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.
So, if a random Kernel developer gets drunk and do something "not welcoming" on a random community event, even if thousands of miles away from current maintainers' location, a random maintainer can be punished, if it doesn't enforce the CoC.
I don't know a single maintainer that signed-up for baby-sitting grown ups.
> Compared to other COC, e.g. , https://lwn.net/Articles/765332/, its simple and straightforward.
Nice document! Didn't read it until today.
I actually liked a lot more that PostgreSQL one, as it inputs penalties to the ones that violate the CoC, not the ones that don't have any relationship to a random abuser, except by eventually taking patches from him/her, when they're technically correct.
Another good thing is that it states two instances to judge misconducts: a comitte and a Core Team. It also defines an appeal process, where parts can defend themselves if they find the decision to be unfair.
Also, I have some doubts if the way we currently handle electronic emails on tags like Suggested-by would be possible without violating the CoC, as it defines electronic information as private information:
private information, such as a physical or electronic address
Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
...
Publishing others’ private information ... without explicit permission
Baby-sitting bad behaviors
Posted Sep 20, 2018 2:52 UTC (Thu) by xtifr (guest, #143) [Link]
You're missing the "in good faith" part. Its simply saying that if you try to abuse these rules, you can face consequences.
...For example, trying to get someone punished because they weren't enforcing the CoC, simply because you wanted to prove that the CoC, as you (mis)interpreted it, was terrible, would be a violation of the CoC. That would not be "enforc[ing] in good faith". (Just in case that was your cunning plan.)
Baby-sitting bad behaviors
Posted Sep 20, 2018 5:07 UTC (Thu) by Rudd-O (guest, #61155) [Link]
Baby-sitting bad behaviors
Posted Oct 15, 2018 0:13 UTC (Mon) by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404) [Link]
I would think that is exactly the job of a maintainer: it's just a matter of what domains of behavior you need to baby sit - their code? Their behavior on a mailing list unrelated to code? Their behavior outside of the kernel community altogether?
The line must be drawn somewhere, but, at some point, you are indeed baby sitting adults. Hopefully only in a very limited domain, though.
I suppose you could be a maintainer that doesn't take responsibility "baby sit" for the patches submitted by other people, but you will either have terrible code or no contributors outside of yourself.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 13:09 UTC (Wed) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 13:24 UTC (Wed) by ejr (subscriber, #51652) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 17:25 UTC (Wed) by mtaht (guest, #11087) [Link]
https://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC-Compu...
For another:
https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Machine-Licklider-Revolution...
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 20:04 UTC (Wed) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]
It's a difficult space to apply safeguards to, or provide recourse for abuse. There are many essentially completely independent parties, and there's a relative lack of central mechanisms where cultural norms for interparty treatment can be hammered out or advanced.
I have many personal stories from the realms of language study, music, astronomy, and other fields where people's careers were derailed by blatant sexism and other such unpleasantness.
From my slightly greater visibility into the space of criminal justice, I think some of the baselines for behavior are leaking into at least conferences. So I think there's hope. I think many people in academia are coming to some of the same conclusions you are.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 20:09 UTC (Wed) by ejr (subscriber, #51652) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 20, 2018 9:48 UTC (Thu) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]
There's also a dynamic where some of the abusive people are brilliant in their field; they are permitted a degree of leniency because of their undoubted expertise. This then results in other abusive people who aren't brilliant believing that they are being unfairly treated because they're not allowed the same degree of leniency as the brilliant experts. This dynamic can become cyclic, depending on how the abusive people are treated each time.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 17:25 UTC (Wed) by clemensg (guest, #94377) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 19, 2018 18:01 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 26, 2018 19:44 UTC (Wed) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link]
Similarly the list of forbidden things is open-ended, meaning that regardless of how one tip-toes around these things the politruks-that-be can simply knit up a paddlin' out of rumour and equivalent derivatives[-1]. Likewise the specification of what amounts to representation is left open, so there's no way to tell what -- aside from wholly anonymous contributions, which the kernel is infamous for rejecting due to the SCO kerfuffle -- wouldn't fall afoul of (say) the rainbow-haired twatter mobs.
There are other downright pernicious properties to this CoC. One of them is that it permits non-practitioners to participate in said twatter mobs at will, since penalties for e.g. harassment[0] apply only within the project. This is analoguous to the way non-practicing entities ("NPEs") are used to wage software patent wars by proxy: a NPE won't feel the burn from an auto-revocation clause in a general "public benefit" patent grant.
Another is that it enshrines a method of adjudication where the accused may be denied chance to face their accuser, or to even hear the content of the accusation in detail so as to mount a reasoned defense. As such there's nothing that wouldn't allow Kafka-style kangaroo trials where the accused is put to the block on the basis of false claims by imaginary people based on made-up evidence. There's no reason the most egregious of falsehoods wouldn't fly: by structure alone, the accused will be found guilty even when the accusation would be physically impossible[1], because all the prosecutor need do is ask that the deets be kept secret from even the accused.
Given the years-long history of this particular CoC and that of its authors, and particularly the way in which it's being applied[0] since its adoption in Linux, I hereby argue directly that these glaring flaws are in the CoC by design. In practice the document is a tool of power, of fascism presented as manners. Unless these failures are remedied forthwith, Linux as we knew it two weeks ago will become a sterile wasteland of poor technical choices[2] enshrined in the politics of ass-kissing, corporate power, and the accompanying cultural rot.[3]
[-1] for example, the number of claims made by anonymous people, as in the case of the german Tor developer accused of pretty much grabbing all the buttocks wherever he went. Twenty nameless people making specious claims are as good as one that can be investigated, as long as the press shouts hard enough.
[0] such as the tytso kerfuffle, which the usual suspects are warming up once again; spose they didn't like his vote against the CoC?
[1] e.g. when a person would be required to be in two places at once, when the allegations are so poorly formed as to not be testable using any empirical experiment (no matter how involved or expensive) whatsoever, or the allegations require grand conspiracy of the sort that always manages to conceal itself. The latter kind in particular turns the absence of evidence into not just evidence but also an extra damning conspiracy membership!
[2] that means you, kdbus.
[3] which isn't to say that it already hadn't.
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 26, 2018 20:23 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Oh come off it. If anyone did that most of the kernel contributors would be massively pissed off, since whatever you choose a lot of other maintainers probably share that political stance.
This is a code, not a program. You don't have to parse it like software. You don't even have to parse it like law: it's meant for the kernel developers to interpret, not for judges and certainly not for computers. (Also, it was adopted in a terrible hurry so worrying about its precise wording like this is simply ludicrous.)
This also explains why penalties apply only within the project: it's not a law, it doesn't have the power to imprison you (or, indeed, any power at all except what the maintainers choose to grant it). Your claim that it has been applied since it was instituted is also ludicrous: it hasn't been applied to anyone at all yet, and random bloggers talking about it are just that: random bloggers talking about it.
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 26, 2018 22:10 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
You mean the American Tor developer who sexually assaulted or raped multiple people, several of whom later put their name to their stories?
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 27, 2018 8:36 UTC (Thu) by paxillus (guest, #79451) [Link]
Rape and sexual assault are serious criminal offences, not CoC oversights.
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 27, 2018 8:44 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 27, 2018 9:32 UTC (Thu) by paxillus (guest, #79451) [Link]
Due process, conducted without fear or favour, where the punishment fits the crime, seems like a better idea than trial-by-twitter.
I don't know anything about the Tor developer accusations - this is the first I've heard of it. I'm assuming from your comments that he's either admitted the crimes or been found guilty by a court.
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 27, 2018 16:42 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Due process, correctly, exists to provide a very high barrier against the state using its power against individuals. But if a conference attendee tells the organisers that a fellow attendee attempted to rape them, the organisers should take action even if the reporter is unwilling to contact the authorities.
> I'm assuming from your comments that he's either admitted the crimes or been found guilty by a court.
No, but I'm unclear on what that has to do with anything.
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 27, 2018 20:13 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]
And if the alleged rapist has an otherwise clean sheet, while the alleged victim has a history of making complaints?
Unfortunately, there are a fair few fantasists out there. And a lot of *MEN* are victims of sexual misbehaviour. Don't get me wrong, the majority of victims are female, and are often ignored, but those men who are victims seem to be ignored even more!
(It seems pretty common for female predators - should a man dare reject them - to accuse their intended victim of all sorts of crimes. And seeing as we're on this subject, this seems to have been the crime of the "rape apologist" - to point out that men can just as easily be victims, too.)
Cheers,
Wol
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 27, 2018 20:33 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Action involves listening to the complaint, talking to those involved and making a decision based on the evidence. That decision may amount to no more than "Please stay away from this person", but the decision to engage should have nothing to do with whether someone's willing to go to the police.
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 28, 2018 8:57 UTC (Fri) by paxillus (guest, #79451) [Link]
It's to do with "someone ... raped multiple people" and due process.
That due process has its origins in the English Barons curbing King John's power is neither here nor there.
It established the principal that
“No freeman shall be ... in any way destroyed . . . except by the legal judgment of his peers or (and) by the law of the land.”
Few would object to a multiple rapist being 'in any way destroyed' by due process.
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 28, 2018 9:13 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 28, 2018 10:16 UTC (Fri) by paxillus (guest, #79451) [Link]
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 28, 2018 16:33 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
It's engineered that way.
Posted Sep 27, 2018 2:42 UTC (Thu) by flussence (subscriber, #85566) [Link]
Good. American politics is a disease. Kill it with fire.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 20, 2018 0:34 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
> Torvalds’s decision to step aside came after The New Yorker asked him a series of questions about his conduct for a story on complaints about his abusive behavior discouraging women from working as Linux-kernel programmers.
Technology companies
Posted Sep 20, 2018 5:33 UTC (Thu) by Nemo_bis (subscriber, #88187) [Link]
And the first sign-off on the git commit is from a Facebook employee.
"New Yorker" article
Posted Sep 21, 2018 12:47 UTC (Fri) by mwilck (subscriber, #1966) [Link]
That article is horribly biased and unfair, in particular considering that it's likely to be consumed by a much larger audience than that which is usually in contact with LKML. Torvalds is portrayed as an anti-social person doing little else than writing abusive email.
This whole discussion is getting it wrong. Being on top of the maintainers chain, Torvalds could easily have dismissed stuff with words like "I don't like this patch, I'm not going to merge it - end of story." That would have fulfilled every criterion of "professionalism" that could be reasonably asked from a person in his position. Yet he often resorted to swearing instead, making himself vulnerable to those attacks which now prevail. Why? In part due to his temper, in part due to his lack of consideration... but other than abuse, can't these outcries be interpreted as - desperate and unhelpful - attempts to make the other side finally get his point?
And if so, isn't that actually better than simply waving the other's arguments aside?
Being sweared at by Linus is certainly a very unpleasant experience. But the way he is now being pilloried by a whole crowd of people is worse. Those who accuse him of being ignorant of other people's sentiments might perhaps consider _his_ feelings for a second. Jon mentioned Torvalds' harsh self-criticism. His willingness to discuss the weaknesses of his own personality in public is nothing but remarkable. I long to see half of that self-critical attitude from those who are attacking him.
"New Yorker" article
Posted Sep 27, 2018 20:18 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]
Yes it's not nice standing next to two people having an argument, especially when you are a deeply involved party to the conversation, but taking offence when it's not even aimed at you can itself be offensive...
Cheers,
Wol
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 20, 2018 1:50 UTC (Thu) by timrichardson (subscriber, #72836) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 20, 2018 4:40 UTC (Thu) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link]
Regardless of religion
Posted Sep 20, 2018 5:27 UTC (Thu) by Nemo_bis (subscriber, #88187) [Link]
> everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, <b>religion</b>, or sexual identity and orientation
There is no need to give special status to religious people compared to non-religious people, effectively discriminating atheists and humanists. While centuries of interpretation have ended up affirming, in most countries, that constitutional clauses for the freedom of religion equally protect the atheists, a document adopted in the 21st century should get such things right from the start.
Even in USA the law now states "conscience, non-theistic views, or" before "religious belief or practice" and "The freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is understood to protect theistic and non-theistic beliefs and the right not to profess or practice any religion."
https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/first-amendment/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_R._Wolf_International...
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr1150enr/html/BIL...
Regardless of religion
Posted Sep 20, 2018 9:23 UTC (Thu) by sdalley (subscriber, #18550) [Link]
On the wider point, that list in the CoC is meant to be exemplary rather than exhaustive, maybe a few words to that effect would have been helpful. I know and respect several upright and sincere atheists, even though my beliefs happen to include spiritual truths and theirs don't.
Regardless of religion
Posted Sep 20, 2018 15:41 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
Where did you hear that? In my experience the idea that atheism is a form of religion is typically advanced by non-atheists hoping to establish a false equivalency (that "atheism requires just as much faith as theism"). The quote that an atheist "just 'worships one less god than [the theists] do'" *is* attributable to atheists, but it's been taken out of context. (Paraphrasing: Theists are atheists with respect to every god humanity has ever worshipped save one; atheists just take this process one god further.)
To coin another phrase: Atheism is a "religion" in exactly the same way that not collecting stamps is a "hobby".
> On the wider point, that list in the CoC is meant to be exemplary rather than exhaustive, maybe a few words to that effect would have been helpful.
I agree. Ironically, it would probably have helped if the list were *less* exhaustive—as it is, it seems like there are just a few categories which were omitted, which leaves people wondering if they were left out for a reason. If they had limited themselves to just a few marginal examples to define the scope, while omitting several more obvious ones, people would be less inclined to perceive the list as potentially exhaustive.
Regardless of religion
Posted Sep 20, 2018 19:52 UTC (Thu) by davidstrauss (guest, #85867) [Link]
It's not always used as a malicious false equivalency. In the United States, courts generally treat atheism as a religion, but they do so as a sort of legal fiction [1]. To these courts, atheism is only a "religion" in the sense that any laws regarding religion apply in equivalent ways to non-practice and non-belief. For example, the protected class (in terms of non-discrimination) that covers religion also applies to non-believers [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction
[2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/are-atheists-prot...
Regardless of religion
Posted Sep 21, 2018 15:59 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
That much I can agree with, but to me it implies only that laws about religious discrimination apply just as much to discriminating on the presence or absence of religion as they do to discrimination among different religions—not that atheism is itself a religion.
I think the problem is that we are mixing up "religion" as a subject with "religions" as particular systems of faith and worship. Atheism is properly part of the subject of religion (as a negative position), but not *a* religion. Religious discrimination refers to the subject matter; you don't need to belong to any particular religion to be covered.
Regardless of religion
Posted Sep 28, 2018 20:26 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]
I think you're confusing atheism and agnosticism.
Atheists *believe* there is no god. As do *several* religions, I believe. But notice that I said atheists *believe*. In other words a religion.
People who don't collect stamps *don't* *care*. Agnostics *don't* *care*. I wouldn't call agnosticism a religion - it's just an observation that "gods don't matter to me". It is also noticeable that Atheists typically attempt to convert other people to their beliefs - yet another defining characteristic of a religion. (Agnostics, again, *don't* *care* whether you agree with them or not.)
Cheers,
Wol
Regardless of religion
Posted Sep 28, 2018 21:26 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]
Atheism and agnosticism both come in pragmatic and dogmatic variants.
The pragmatic atheist is merely adopting the null hypothesis (since no deities can be adequately shown to exist, proceed as if no deities exist) in the absence of sufficient evidence to believe in any particular deity; the dogmatic atheist actively believes there are no deities.
The pragmatic agnostic has no experience that they interpret as being experience of a deity or deities. The dogmatic agnostic believes that experience of deities (at least in life) is impossible. One can be agnostic (pragmatic or dogmatic) and still believe that deities exist, of course.
The dogmatic modes of each rather resemble religious doctrines, though I would hesitate to call them religions in the absence of additional premises attached thereto.
Regardless of religion
Posted Sep 28, 2018 21:54 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
No, what I am describing is atheism: the absence of belief in a god or gods.
Agnosticism addresses a different question altogether: whether it is possible in principle to know whether or not god(s) exist. There are agnostic theists, and agnostic atheists, as well as theists and atheists who are not agnostic. Demanding evidence to justify belief, with absence of belief as the default in the absence of evidence, does not make one agnostic; it makes one a rationalist. The agnostic view is that there can be no evidence one way or the other, that belief and absence of belief are both equally "leaps of faith", and that all positions on the presence or absence of god(s) should be granted equal credibility.
Atheists, as a rule, *don't* *care* whether you personally agree with them or not, as long as you keep to yourself and don't make trouble. However, unlike agnostics, non-agnostic atheists are unlikely to grant your beliefs equal credibility, and will tend to see any attempt to spread such beliefs in the absence of evidence as tantamount to fraud.
> Atheists *believe* there is no god. But notice that I said atheists *believe*. In other words a religion.
Some atheists assert that there is positive evidence for the absence of god(s). This is sometimes referred to as "strong atheism". Not all atheists hold this position. More to the point, even "strong atheism" is not a religion. A religion involves worship as well as belief. One can *believe* that the sky is blue, or that there are no invisible pink unicorns living in one's back yard, without making a religion out of it. None of the myriad varieties of atheism involve any form of worship; ergo, atheism is not a religion.
Regardless of religion
Posted Sep 29, 2018 8:45 UTC (Sat) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]
I prefer "observance" to "worship", since IIRC Buddhism says that worshipping gods keeps you trapped in samsara (because you are worshipping a being who is themselves trapped in samsara).
Regardless of religion
Posted Sep 20, 2018 14:44 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 20, 2018 6:12 UTC (Thu) by bferrell (subscriber, #624) [Link]
1.) "Laundry lists". -- The culture of today, in general and especially in tech, is all about skirting and avoiding the spirit while conforming to the letter. Disruption is the core value, above all others.
2.) As I've followed this and other intertwined issues, I've noticed things that might be explored but somehow aren't, and in not being explored I suspect some fundamental issues are being missed that apply in far more general ways:
In an article published today in The Atlantic, this jumped out in the section on Megan Squire and is fascinating for this one comment:
Squire told me that she found few examples of gender bias. “He is an equal-opportunity
abuser,” she said. Squire added, though, that for non-male programmers the hostility and
public humiliation is more isolating.
And that raises a question that so far I've never see raised, considered and obviously not answered.
Same abuse, but a radically more/different effect... Why?
The nearest answer I've seen is "it just is". There is an additional question to be raised:
Is it really male vs non-male or was that the only divide tested? If so, why?
I think until these are addressed, there will be continuing issues and excessive conflicts.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 20, 2018 11:57 UTC (Thu) by himi (subscriber, #340) [Link]
The same is true for people from less common cultural backgrounds (in comparison to the existing community) - working in a second language, dealing with cross cultural communication issues, even things like the kind of humour that's considered acceptable in different cultures, all add to the background burden on people who are just trying to contribute.
This is already well studied and understood, it's just not well accepted outside parts of academia, or what might be loosely termed the "social justice" movement. Lots of people don't seem to want to accept it - the push back that's going on now in this community is a perfect example. But it's either ignorant or disingenuous to claim that there's no explanation better than "it just is..."
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 20, 2018 16:49 UTC (Thu) by bferrell (subscriber, #624) [Link]
That's KIND of my point. And the expression in the article was quite specific.
Your response is along the lines of "...and every one knows this"
My hackles always raise when I see this line of thinking/response.
But I DO absolutely agree that everyone can and does suffer harm from abusive behavior.
And that too is part of the issue here; Harm is NOT gender, race or culture specific; Laying a claim to that specificity is a problem, in that explicitly excludes those other harms.
I don't think it's deliberate or intended, but it's there.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 20, 2018 10:35 UTC (Thu) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]
And I support it with all my heart.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 21, 2018 6:59 UTC (Fri) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link]
Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary was well-known for always saying "Es war sehr schoen, es hat mich sehr gefreut" (It was very beautiful, I enjoyed it) on cultural events. Supposedly he adopted that phrase after Eduard van der Nuell (the architect of the (then) court opera in Vienna) had committed suicide after being criticized by the emperor (and others). I am sure the emperor had phrased his critique in courteous words, but rejection hurts nonetheless.In contrast to the emperor on cultural issues, a project leader (whether Linus Torvalds or someone else) has to make decisions on project issues, and many decisions hurt people even when the words are code-conformant (for any code). So I expect that a change in wording practices will have less effect on the addressees of the words than some may expect. The difference will appear to be bigger to outsiders.
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 25, 2018 18:09 UTC (Tue) by kjp (guest, #39639) [Link]
A good book I've read is "Verbal Judo". It's written by a police officer who trains other police and referees on how to tactfully talk to and get compliance from people who are behaving at their worst. But those people will still go to jail.. just hopefully without adding additional offenses. Ultimately, I liked the book because it shows how I'm not the only person who struggles with "tact".
Code, conflict, and conduct
Posted Sep 24, 2018 3:10 UTC (Mon) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
Signed-off-by is simply a statement affirming the "Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1", so it just says that all these people believe they either wrote the patch, or received it with an appropriate license, and in any case claim they have the right to include it in the kernel. Surely we don't so many developers to certify the origin of this patch?
It would have made much more sense to have multiple "Acked-by".
A matter of perspective
Posted Sep 27, 2018 10:44 UTC (Thu) by codeofdrama (guest, #127444) [Link]
A) The Linux developer community is healthy with occasional minor infractions.
B) The Linux developer community is toxic.
C) The Contributor Covenant is a generic document, which permits a wide range of interpretations.
D) The Contributor Covenant is a tool meant for persuing social justice in the form of anti-meritocracy, and intersectional feminism.
E) An online community can be welcoming, inclusive, and transparently police itself without adopting a Code of Conduct.
F) A Code of Conduct is an important tool for ensuring a welcoming, and inclusive online community.
I think there are real disagreements here, and I encourage these to be acknowledged, and addressed by the core maintainers. I do hope that "debate will continue until morale improves". Full disclosure: I find my views closest to the (A, D, E) triple.