Slashdot Mirror


Linus Torvalds On Linux's Code of Conduct (bbc.com)

Linus Torvalds oversees every line of code added to the Linux kernel, but in recent years the male-dominated community has become increasingly divided, reports BBC. Rows about sexism and rudeness led to the creation of a Code of Conflict (CoC) in 2015 which was short -- simply recommending people "be excellent to each other." That has now been replaced by a more detailed Code of Conduct -- which retains the acronym, but attempts to be more inclusive and eliminate insulting and derogatory comments and behaviour. Reader sinij writes: Recently Linux Community adopted a new controversial Code of Conduct authored by Contributor Covenant also known for authoring the Post-Meritocracy Manifesto. In an exclusive email interview with the BBC, Mr Torvalds shared his thoughts on his decision to temporarily step aside, the controversy behind the CoC, and the defects of the community he set up. His thoughts on CoC: The advantage of concentrating on technology is that you can have some mostly objective measures, and some basis for agreement, and you can have a very nice and healthy community around it all. I really am motivated by the technology, but the community around Linux has been a big positive too. But there are very tangible and immediate common goals in any technical project like Linux, and while there is occasionally disagreement about how to solve some particular issue, there is a very real cohesive force in that common goal of improving the project. And even when there are disagreements, people in the end often have fairly clear and objective measures of what is better. Code that is faster, simpler, or handles more cases naturally is just objectively 'better', without people really having to argue too much about it.

In contrast, the arguments about behaviour never seem to end up having a common goal. Except, in some sense, the argument itself. Have you read the Twitter feeds and other things by the people who seem to care more about the non-technical side? I think your 'hyped stories' is about as polite as you can put it. It's a morass of nastiness. Instead of a 'common goal', you end up with horrible fighting between different 'in-groups'. It's very polarising, and both sides love egging the other side on. It's not even a 'discussion', it's just people shouting at each other. That's actually the reason I for the longest time did not want to be involved with the whole CoC discussion in the first place. That whole subject seems to very easily just devolve and become unproductive. And I found a lot of the people who pushed for a CoC and criticised me for cursing to be hypocritical and pointless. I could easily point you to various tweet storms by people who criticise my 'white cis male' behaviour, while at the same time cursing more than I ever do.

So that's my excuse for dismissing a lot of the politically correct concerns for years. I felt it wasn't worth it. Anybody who uses the words 'white cis male privilege' was simply not worth my time even talking to, I felt. "And I'm still not apologising for my gender or the colour of my skin, or the fact that I happen to have the common sexual orientation. What changed? Maybe it was me, but I was also made very aware of some of the behaviour of the 'other' side in the discussion. Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad. And don't get me wrong, please -- I'm not making excuses for some of my own rather strong language. But I do claim that it never ever was any of that kind of nastiness. I got upset with bad code, and people who made excuses for it, and used some pretty strong language in the process. Not good behaviour, but not the racist/etc claptrap some people spout. So in the end, my 'I really don't want to be too PC' stance simply became untenable. Partly because you definitely can find some emails from me that were simply completely unacceptable, and I need to fix that going forward. But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.

47 of 755 comments (clear)

  1. Coming soon to this thread by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.

    Coming soon to this thread: Those people.

    1. Re:Coming soon to this thread by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.

      Coming soon to this thread: Those people.

      I know, right?

      If only "those people" would just accept their super low status and their incredible wrongness!

    2. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's more like: if only those people could behave constructively even in the face of people who aren't. If only those people could undergo some personal growth, like even Linus "asbestos underpants" Torvalds has eventually managed to accomplish. If only those people wouldn't use the PC gripe as an excuse for their worst feelings and urges. If only...

    3. Re: Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Caving isn't personal growth. It's giving up on principals. Linus caved to save the project. It probably won't work.

    4. Re:Coming soon to this thread by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know all those times you complained about snowflakes and told Clinton supporters "this is why you lost"?

      Yeah. Linus is right, it's not a debate, it's just people screaming at each other.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they scream something constructive, I am glad they do because then I can hear them.

      If they scream something destructive, I'm glad there's a mute button right next to their name.

      Yes, it actually IS that easy on the internet to get rid of someone obnoxious. It has never been easier to ignore someone you can't stand.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Coming soon to this thread by js290 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It doesn't hurt to be nice and civil, but it also seems like Torvalds caved into Guilt By Association and Equivocation fallacies. If someone confuses Torvalds with "white cis male privilege" nationalist nazi, then it says more about that someone than about Torvalds.

      Wittgenstein’s Ruler (@joyousandswift’s Maxim): "Most of the time, people’s observations about something else reveal more about the observer than what’s being observed." http://bit.ly/2KYABXT

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    7. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the "Nazis are bad" statement is only a political statement because "Nazi" has been redefined to "People I disagree with". If people would keep to the original definition, it wouldn't seem so political. And if you disagree with what I wrote, think about how many times Trump has been called "literally hitler" and how many times his supporters have been called "nazis".

    8. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But maybe the reverse?

      Ban all political rants from both code and comments. Have a list of politically incorrect terms, have GIT automagically reject any code with those terms in the source code text.

      Hmmmm....that would be a nice improvement to slashcode as well. Expand the lameness filter.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    9. Re:Coming soon to this thread by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your dichotomy is false. There is no requirement that the "political correct" response include accepting the idea. Your 3rd example is also "politically correct".

      The insistence that being "politically correct" requires the equivalent of handing out participation trophies is something those opposed to the idea came up with in an attempt to discredit it.

    10. Re:Coming soon to this thread by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's usually no reason for foul language. Except when it comes to flat earthers.

      "Flat earthers... and conservatives...libertarians...Republicans...cis-gendered white males...those who have more money than me...or anyone I dislike or disagree with for any reason."

      The problem here is the list of those it's PC to hate and abuse is fluid and changes with the political expediency and 'feelz' of the moment. This is intentional. Political correctness is a tool, a weapon really, for destroying a relatively cohesive society and turning groups against each other. It's a part of Post-Modernism which includes identity politics, whose entire goal by those who created it from the beginning was destroying Western Enlightenment principles and the modern West itself.

      It's working a treat, too. Just look at the division, hatred, and destruction it has brought. Even Linux is being destroyed by it. This ideology is pure poison and it and those who promulgate it need to be stopped.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    11. Re:Coming soon to this thread by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >> There's usually no reason for foul language.

      Bullshit (a euphemism for "I disagree"). Why are some words special? I argue they are not. It is only idiotic brain-washing as a kid that makes you think some words have the status of "Foul". There is no objective reason to single out particular words. Sorry, you just don't have a legitimate argument beyond "what you prefer".

    12. Re:Coming soon to this thread by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So if I decided I don't like Linus' tone I can just mute him and still contribute to the kernel, right? Someone will re-write his critiques of my code and forward it on to me.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Coming soon to this thread by malkavian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can fork it and add your code, sure.
      If your code is actually superior, it may catch on. The probability is that Linus was right in adopting a his stance, so you'll have not added anything beneficial (and perhaps something actively detrimental).
      Options are always there.

    14. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, this is incredibly stupid. Using his "logic", if there are white supremacists out there who also happen to be programmers, then Linus should stop programming so that he's not associated with those people.

      It's an insidious type of capitulation.

    15. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Mr307 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its funny how PC types attack the person and not the argument.

    16. Re:Coming soon to this thread by mlyle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe that's part of the problem. We can all create (or have social media companies create for us) tailored experiences that just give us exactly what we expect, confirm all our biases, and keep us in our comfort zone.

    17. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And there it is, Double down: Trump is a Nazi same as all R presidential candidates back to Dewey.

      It's just old, tired and stupid at this point. Not convincing anyone.

      'This time it's real' is part of the derp.

      They told me Nixon was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, Nixon was no Nazi.

      They told me Reagan was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, Reagan was no Nazi.

      They told me George H.W. Bush was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, George H.W. Bush was no Nazi.

      They told me George W. Bush was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, George W. Bush was no Nazi.

      Now they're telling me Trump is a Nazi, and I'm ignoring them, because for all his many glaring, egregious faults, Trump is no Nazi.

      I hope a real Nazi doesn't ever get close to power, because the people crying NAZI! NAZI! NAZI! at every Republican since Eisenhower have long since lost every shred of credibility.

      (No, I didn't vote for the SOB, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to think he's a Nazi.)

    18. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about a quote from Linus right in TFS?

      "I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad."

      If you are claiming that isn't caving on his principles out of fear of unjust association I can't imagine what you WOULD consider caving...

    19. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, he is facing the same injustice we all are, you have two groups of extremists and if you fall anywhere in the middle both will equate you to the other. As a consequences more and more people are shifting to the extremes. Both groups are evil but one is so overtly evil no sane person would want to be associated with it and while the other has mass numbers and will immediately associate you with it if you start to point out their message is hate thinly veiled as a plea for tolerance.

    20. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Both groups are evil but one is so overtly evil no sane person would want to be associated with it

      The sad part is that, while I assume this is a reference to white supremacists, I'm really having a hard time seeing how it doesn't apply to both groups.

      If you actually listen to the most prominent "white supremacists" these days, none of them advocate violence. Their followers certainly do, but as far as the official ideology goes it's all about "separation of the races" via nonviolent means. Obviously any remotely fairminded person would disagree with that objective, but calling it "overtly evil" seems a stretch. There are plenty of other racial groups which seek to maintain a distinct population in which they are a majority, and nobody calls that "evil".

      On the other side you have movements like ANTIFA which explicitly endorse violence. "Punch a Nazi" isn't just a meme spread by followers, it's a core belief of the entire organization. They feel so assured of their righteousness that they're more than happy to publicly encourage violence in pursuit of their goals. Even worse, they don't just target actual Nazis; they're perfectly fine with using violence against anyone whose politics lean even slightly right of Stalin.

      There's an understandable knee-jerk reaction to condemn Nazis and white-supremacists as unredeemably evil, due to the history of those movements. However, putting aside the historical context for a minute and just looking at the words and actions of the two sides in the here and now, it's pretty hard to justify applying those labels only to that particular side.

      I guess what I'm really asking here is how are you drawing that line? Is the historical context the important thing? If so, why wouldn't we consider Muslims to also be "so overtly evil that no sane person would want to be associated with them"? Historically they've conquered, enslaved, and forcefully converted countless cultures, and here, today, they still insist on maintaining entire countries ruled by their ideology in which all others are either excluded or treated as second class citizens. What kind of differentiation can you make between "white separatists" and Muslims, which would justify classifying only one of them as irredeemably evil?

      I hope you'll give this some serious consideration, and provide a serious response. It's something which has been bugging me for a while, and I'm honestly curious about how people draw these lines. Outside of a kind of ingrained cultural disgust for white supremacy, I'm not seeing any actual difference.

  2. So much for that by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And I'm still not apologising for my gender or the colour of my skin, or the fact that I happen to have the common sexual orientation.

    Oh, yes you are, yes you are ... you may not know it yet, but you are ...

    1. Re:So much for that by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, there are certainly people that will accuse you of being white and straight and try to make you feel guilty for it. (I am both and male in addition...)
      Personally, I just put these people in the "fuckup" class and ignore them after they have made such an utterly stupid and despicably manipulative accusation.

      I have seem people apologize for being male of for "their gender" while being male. I don't get that either. It is not a club that you were ever asked to be a member of or not.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  3. The trolls have won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We gave them too much attention, took them too seriously, and now we have to alter our own behavior, 'least we be associated with their scum and villainy. What a truly awful time to be alive.

  4. Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surely no one believes that only nazis and fascists have a problem with this right?

    There are some devs who are perfectly decent human beings who simply don't want political agendas pushed through software development code of conducts. Is that so unreasonable?

    1. Re: Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Shhhh. You're either with them or a Nazi.

    2. Re:Oh come on by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Surely no one believes that only nazis and fascists have a problem with this right?

      I think progressives really do believe that. I've seen too many "free speech is hate speech" posters at free speech protests to think it'a all a sham. And how are protests against free speech even a thing at colleges?

      We clearly lost the thread when it comes to basic freedoms in America, and it didn't happen by accident. Just like it's no accident that there are young people whose complaint about "make America great again" is "America was never great". It's pernicious education.

      Who benefits from the suppression of free speech in America? People who imagine themselves your future rulers. People who want to achieve that "by any means necessary".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Oh come on by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When "muh freeze peach" is being used by privileged white cishet males to silence women and people of color, you can bet we're going to rethink our values.

      I am so very sorry that you're no longer allowed to abuse oppressed peoples with impunity and that those dirty women and inferior races are now being allowed into your privileged space... oh wait, no, I'm not sorry at all!

      AC is just trolling, but I think there are people now who really believe it. Spend enough time where everyone around you repeats stuff like this, and it starts to sink in.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Oh come on by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think progressives really do believe that

      Who benefits from the suppression of free speech in America?

      I'm going to have a hard time trusting your analysis of other people when you don't even know what free speech actually is.

      Free speech is you can't get arrested for what you say. Everyone else also has the free speech rights to say you are a fucking asshole for saying it.

    5. Re:Oh come on by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not merely "not being arrested": the "hecklers veto" prevents free speech. Creating a "chilling effect" prevents free speech. If you ant to call someone an asshole, that's fine, that's alsomore speech, though actually presenting a rational argument might be more useful than name calling.

      Violent protests to prevent speech from happening stand in the way of free speech. The government is supposed to have a monopoly on violence, and it's that threat of violence that makes government suppression of speech so bad, but any violent suppression of speech is bad, not only governments.

      Also, universities might as well be the government for these purposes. Universities shutting down free discussion of ideas simply cannot end well. Restricting free speech to tiny "free speech zones" cannot be a good thing. Universities teaching, explicitly or by example, that free speech is bad needs to stop.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Oh come on by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know if you understand the term. The "heckler's veto" refers to disrupting an event so that no speech can occur. Preventing speech is not free speech (what could be more obvious?).

      Public universities are the government. Private universities are not, and retain their rights of association.

      Depends how much government funding they take, but more generally "people with government-like power over you" need the same restrictions as government for our rights to be protected. Universities have fairly extreme power over their students, much more so than most other situations adults are likely to encounter (maybe airports, but hat's government now).

      Your free speech rights do not trump other's rights of association. They have the right to exclude you from their club, even if said club has university approval.

      Sure, but what does that non-sequitur have to do with "free speech zones", which prevent speech in common areas? I'll assume you also believe that clubs who host a speech by a free speech advocate have the right to exclude hecklers.

      After all, you just launched the goalposts into orbit to avoid discussing.

      To avoid discussing what? You haven't clearly explained the strawman that you want to argue against. My OP simply stated that suppression of free speech is bad, and that it's a sad state of affairs when college students, of all people, protest free speech.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Oh come on by Mr307 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those simplistic utopian worldviews normally/historically dont survive long into adulthood but 'we' made the world too soft and easy for too long, many of these people genuinely believe they are victims and are oppressed while living in the most free and advanced civilization ever in history.

      They will seriously try to 'save us' for our own good because they believe their ridiculous nonsense, and in that way do real evil.

      All the while completely satisfied they are doing good as CS Lewis described: "but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

      Completely warped.

    8. Re: Oh come on by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The funny thing about narrow minded idiots like you is that, in the name of "tolerance", you often end up sounding more intolerant and insane than the "Nazis" you criticize.

      Oh jeez, you've literally only just discovered the paradox of tolerance? You're going to be insufferable for your whole freshman year. My advice to you: read the wikipedia page, talk about it while wasted with your college buddies for like 6 months. Then it will be out of your system when you find a girl or guy, have to do some actual work and need to chose a major.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  5. Non-Binary by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Non-binary people can't fathom a world where the "Us vs Them" extremist thinking is bad. Therefore, if you don't care about PC language, and cowering before the LGBT Crowd's demands, you MUST BE A NAZI!!!!!!!

    This isn't about Linus being a Nazi, because I don't even think he is, but when that is HIS fears(being called a Nazi), because he doesn't retreat at being labeled a "white cis male", that is really telling to where we are as a society. And only a few of us find this to be actually frightening?

    I don't care what people are, really. I just don't want to be told what I must do, what I must say, especially when it is being backed by the full power of government. This is nothing more than Nazi like bully tactics. People should take a long look at how Nazi's actually worked. The Political Correct Left is more like Nazis than anything.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Non-Binary by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you even read TFS? Linus adopted the CoC to avoid being called a Nazis.

      I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Non-Binary by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Give the whole quote and it will make more sense:

      Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi

      In other words he decided that he couldn't sit on the fence any more, because doing and saying nothing was effectively the 4chan option where anything goes, and it's fine to be a Nazi. He is not saying he is worried about being called a Nazi, he is saying that he doesn't want to give the impression that anything goes behaviour and content-wise on official Linux channels.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  6. My problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My problem is that the center left folks are not criticizing the far left angry "I hate white cis males who are all nazis who deserve to be taxed/punished".

    Since the centre left is not criticizing these folks, they are opening the door to some godawful policies being put in place to police our thoughts and words when/if the next time they get voted in.

    1. Re:My problem by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can criticize them 'til you're blue in the face, they're fully resistant against reason and logic. It's like the religious right wing nutjobs found their pendant on the other side of the spectrum. Same rhetoric, different agenda.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:My problem by scamper_22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's actually really hard for any group to criticize the angry part of their group.

      Jordan Peterson really hits on something when he says, we have finally reached a state where we draw a line on the right. Anyone who speaks on superiority of people just on the basis of their race... has crossed that line and must be publicly denounced. We really do forget that globally, people cross that line all the time.

      It's actually very unique for a group to criticize it's 'crazies'. The reason is simply their crazies do the dirty work.

      I grew up Muslim. Whenever you get free speech issues, like say the cartoon thing. The vast majority of my family in Canada (and we're like 2nd/3rd pretty moderate generation) will say something like the following. Killing people is wrong, but they shouldn't be saying stuff about Islam anyways. Or you have like my family in the UK, where the crazies are one's who try to get rid of various ethnicities in their neighborhood. Now, no moderate person would voice their support of it, but they're just glad the community is now safer and better.

      You had the same thing with the KKK back in the day. Not every white person liked the KKK or wanted the violence, but the KKK did the job they wanted. They kept blacks out of the neighborhood. They were on 'your' side. So most white people wouldn't go out there and really take on the KKK. It really took a lot to push that fight.

      The far left isn't going to do it either. They enjoy that the threat of punch a Nazi or shame you out of the job keeps people in line. They will throw the same token rejection of violence or whatever that every other group days... while letting their crazies do their thing because it benefits them.

      Blacks won't do it either. They will never fight black extremists because they're on their side. You see it happening in South Africa today. The government working alongside what is the black equivalent of the KKK, led by Julius Malema. It's really strange just to see the language and how the groups work. The ANC says it's not racist... but really can't go against the black KKK. Coded threats. Outright violence. All the while, the government sits backs and says: what's the problem, we're not racist. Let's just work it all out, while they work with people who openly chant kill whites, kill farmers.

      Anyways, the long and short of it is. Very few people actually take on their crazies of their group that fights for them and their interests. Probably because no one is playing to lose. The weird line the West drew so cohesively and broadly against Nazis is actually kind of unique. Everywhere else in the world, the alt-right or whatever is pretty much regular behavior.

  7. What does this have to do with Kernel development? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The internet is the great anonymizer.

    There is no way for someone to know that a contributor to the linux kernel is of a certain color, race, gender, or sexual orientation unless they volunteer that information.

    And why would they? What does it have to do with Kernel development?

    In my experience, this is the battle cry of the incompetent. When they don't get their way, suddenly it's because of your discrimination against their $trait that you couldn't have possibly known about in the first place.

  8. Why does a code of conduct have to specify people? by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do we even have to know the sexual orientation, gender or race of programmers and engineers? Other than language difficulties from non-english as their first language speakers causing misunderstanding, here really shouldn't be any drama. Even stupid jokes should be excluded, its a technical list.

    But when a code of conduct lists people to protect, it starts a once side argument. How about don't be an asshole to everyone, why does the CoC have to state a list of people that you shouldn't be an asshole too? This is is nothing but political propaganda and those politics should stay off technical lists.

    All this "cis white males" are the enemy being pushed around is no better than someone pushing "color hair LGBTQ+" stereotypes need to be protected.

    This "Us vs Them" is what these types code of conducts promote. If you have to list people to protect instead of language, you picked out a group of people as offenders and make the others victims. The Tribal nature of silicon valley that whites straight males are the enemy and then put into code of conduct is wrong, and it's being spread around projects is petty and a way to try to get back at people.

      "Be Excellent to each other" shouldn't be written to imply "This means you, white cis males!".

    Just because the world is divided in left vs right, worse than ever, we in tech should be above this tribal nature, not going towards it at full speed.

  9. Kant's second formulation by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... of the Categorical Imperative:

    Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

    Emphasis mine here: acting ethically doesn't mean you have to cripple yourself by focusing solely on other peoples's rights. But they're part of the constraints you actually operate under, so it's best not to ignore them.

    This isn't just an ethical prescription, it's practical advice. Treating your coworkers with respect doesn't precluding fighting over technical details. In fact, if you've never tried it you'll be amazed at how much more productive a heated but respectful argument is over one where everyone's objective is to beat the other guy by any means available. That's the difference between the best ideas winning and the loudest dickheads winning.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Kant's second formulation by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with the CoC is not that it sort-of advocates Kant's imperative. The problem is that it can and will be used to push people out of the project for purely power-related reasons. This is an attempt at a hostile takeover. Sure, it looks benign, but it is anything but.

      On the plus-side, any ambition I may have had to contribute to the kernel is now thoroughly dead.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Kant's second formulation by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the steps as written leads to the circle where both sides tell the other side that they're being an asshole. Yelling ensues.
      You missed a key part of #3: If someone says you're being an asshole, stop and analyze your behavior and theirs and figure out why they're upset. Do an honest analysis and don't assume the problem is with them. Then either "change your behavior" or "share your analysis back with the person who said you were an asshole and engage in dialog until you can both agree on a standard of behavior."

  10. Reward! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Reward for information leading to successful recovery of Linus Torvalds's balls.

    Call 1-800-555-SNIP

  11. Why the hell is this relevant? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you care whether the kernel developer working with you who sits a few thousand miles away is male, female something in between or completely different, black, white, brown, green-orange polka dotted, gay, bi, straight, fucking his pet goat...?

    And if so, WHY?

    How the fuck is any of this relevant to their work?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obvious? No.

    Does the meta narrative have a SJW theme all over it? Maybe.

    I'd be willing to bet dollars-to-donuts that Patricia had a huge rule in convincing her father to do a 180 but I think we need more facts to determine that though. Speaking of facts, there are few that rather stand out to me after reading Tiago's perspective. Paraphrasing:

    Interestingly enough Linus' daughter, Patricia Torvalds, activist of "Guerilla Feminism, supports the Post-Meritocracy Manifesto which was created by Stupid Juvenile Whiner Coraline Ada Ehmke, the latter who also created the Code of Conduct.

    Ruby's CoC is simple and to the point. It is summarized as "Matz is nice and so we are nice," commonly abbreviated as MINASWAN.

    But Ruby's simply CoC "wasn't good enough" for Coraline though. After Coraline's attempted hijacking of Ruby's CoC was 100% shot down by Matz ...

    We have set our Code of Conduct.

    https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/c...

    I hope it works. We may upgrade it if something happens.

    Matz.

    ... Coraline continued being a shit stirrer. Notice how the community basically told her to "fork off". (Pun intended.)

    Matz isn't alone. Other have voiced their criticism of her CoC:

    Given a choice between only two extremes, I'd far rather have Linus Torvalds telling me I'm an idiot and my code is shit, then exist in an offense-taking culture where various forms of criticism are re-branded as "harassment."

    Back in 2013 Stupid Juvenile Whiner Sage Sharp targeted Linus. Failing that, she is now targeting Ted Tso calling him a "rape apologist".

    Funny how these people love to play Judge, Juror, and Executioner, all at once without any evidence, and want to their CoC to be inclusive even when they aren't, but I digress.

    What do these examples have to do with Linux, Linus, and the CoC ?

    Eric Raymond pointed the dangers of meritocracy back in 2015. with his Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs article. The example he brought up was about djangoconcardiff lying about patch rejection in the django community.

    I noticed you have rejected some pull requests to add some good django libraries and that the people submitting those pull requests are POCs (People of Colour).

    rosarior shut that down.

    The pull request was rejected not the person. Of the people who did not had their patches accepted at least one submitted another pull request and was accepted or are contributors in my other repositories, disproving your basic premise.

    There is no need for a code of conduct, there hasn't been a conduct related incident with the repository and nothing about a contributor comes into play when rejecting or accepting a patch (as proved above). An explanation is provided when a patch is rejected, and some have been left open to re-asses in a future time.

    I'm not white and please don't make any other assumptions about me, they hold no relevance to the matter at hand.

    Now I hate conspiracy theories with a passion but does the "recent" rash of CoC changes seem to be politically driven? Maybe. There SEEMS to be a larger narrative at play.

    Regardless, I still think it is too early to tell but this inclusion of meritocracy is definitely something to keep an eye out for in the future.