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 That has now been replaced by a more detailed Code of Conduct -- which retains the acronym, but attempts to be more inclusive and eliminate insulting and derogatory comments and behaviour.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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
Unfortunately we live in an era where we can say the Earth is Round, and Nazi's are bad and have it seem like a political statement.
But being cavil to each other shouldn't be considered politically correct.
So in a development community:
A political correct response to a bad idea: That is a good idea, we will prioritize it. (Then make it bottom priority) The person who made the bad idea didn't learn anything new, and thinks his idea is a good one. However the person who did the respond is not necessarily hated.
A politically incorrect and uncivil response: Calling the person an idiot questioning his parentage and life style. The person who made the bad idea still didn't learn anything, and he is just pissed off at the community.
A politically incorrect yet civil response: We don't agree or like your idea, we find such faults in the design that we find unacceptable. The person has learned the reason for the rejection, and while may be angry that his idea and work didn't get the praise he feels it may deserve. The civil and rational response gives them the opportunity to learn and try again, perhaps with the direction the community is trying to follow.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Linus points out that there are plenty of people on the other side of the political correctness line who are every bit as nasty as some of those who are against it. If your desire is to avoid being associated with the worst sort of people from side A, it seems that you should also want to avoid the same from the other side as well. I think that line of reasoning itself is terrible as you can find plenty of awful people who believe in anything. You can broadly use the same argument for free speech itself (and you often here it used) and why it should be limited. Hopefully most people can see the issue when framed this way. However, that's my own argument, not Linus's and I don't know if he'd agree with me it to begin with.
I think that Linus actually had a pretty good take on all of this years ago:
So as far as I'm concerned, the discussion is about "how to work together DESPITE people being different". Not about trying to make everybody please each other. Because I can pretty much guarantee that I'll continue cursing. To me, the discussion would be about how to work together despite these kinds of cultural differences, not about "how do we make everybody nice and sing songs sound the campfire" . . . Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways.
I think "Don't be a massive dick to anyone else" is probably sufficient as far as code of conduct goes. Yes it's vague, but any precise set of rules to govern behavior is going to be incomplete and subject to all manners of pettiness.
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
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.
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.
and my response to that is basically
" To those i have not offended yet please stand by i will get to you shortly"
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.
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 ...
Matz isn't alone. Other have voiced their criticism of her CoC:
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.
rosarior shut that down.
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.
Its funny how PC types attack the person and not the argument.