Linux Community isn't a social network, support group, or law enforcement organization. It has a clearly defined purpose - to produce Linux kernel of best possible quality in shortest amount of time. You are trying to subvert and re-purpose this organization to suit your priorities and in doing so you are presuming to impose your values and your priorities on others. You are welcome to fork Linux and focus forked project on your specific list of priorities.
I often call out SJW on their flawed thinking in this regard, so it is only fair I call you out when you make the same mistake. Just because someone is Notorious Social Justice Warrior and done many SJW things, it doesn't mean that CoC they wrote is necessary flawed. People tend to be more than one thing. If it is possible to be a raging asshole and brilliant coder, then it also follows that it is possible to be a raging SJW and write good CoC.
While I am not asserting that this CoC is good, I am asserting that we shouldn't criticize it solely based on political views of its author.
I think the best defense against SJW is to implement this CoC then work on refining it. Fix the areas where it is ambiguous or invites abuses. Like imprecise scope definition.
> if it is open then law enforcement would have no problems prosecuting such behavior.
What world do you live in? We can't get people to agree that sexual harassment is even a thing, or should be legally actionable; you really think "law enforcement" is going to "prosecute" that?
I recommend you work on that problem instead of trying to find alternative law enforcement mechanisms by re-purposing other organizations.
Linux community is designed to produce Linux kernel, not police sexual harassment in everyday life.
So if I were a known and public Linux maintainer, go to a tech conference, and start openly sexually harassing women attendees, or berating minorities who are showing interest in technology... you're saying the Linux Community should have no ability to distance themselves from that contributor in the form of revoking write access?
Are you sure that's what you want?
Unless tech conference is sponsored/related by Linux, then "do nothing" is correct approach. Sexual harassment is against the law, if it is open then law enforcement would have no problems prosecuting such behavior.
To flip this example on you: So if I were a known and public Linux maintainer, sponsor a pro-life initiative in my state... you're saying the Linux Community should have to distance themselves from that contributor in the form of revoking write access when someone complains?
Give us a specific example of a flaw that can't be addressed in a way that is compatible with "using welcoming and inclusive language".
I'll see if I can address it in a way that meets those requirements if you give me an example.
This comment does not follow CoC: AmiMoJo, you inbred SJW, you wouldn't know good code if you see it. How would you know how to properly criticize it, fuckwit?
This comment does follow CoC: AmiMoJo, while it is possible to criticize someone constructively, it is not only time consuming, it also presupposes that other party is open to criticism. People fail to learn all the time, and it could be the case that shunning them is the necessary approach.
Social Justice Warriors advocate social justice in the same way as The National Socialist German Worker's Party advocated rights of Jewish workers in Germany.
The "these people might gain a degree of legitimacy by associating with Linux" problem is categorically different from "these people will end meritocracy in Linux" problem. One is a marginal concern, and another one existential crisis.
Because there may be times where they may be socially associated with an organization, but not acting on "official" behalf of them. As a contrived example, if they're attending an industry conference where they're not an "appointed representative", people may still identify them as a "Linux maintainer".
I don't disagree that it's ambiguous, but with people attempting to be hyper-literal in order to defend their terrible behavior as unactionable, I don't see any way it couldn't be. They have to leave themselves room to allow a case-by-case basis in egregious circumstances.
It should be unactionable, because alternative is subjective and selective policing and that is orders of magnitude worse. My view that it shouldn't be up to a project to police terrible behaviour that is not directly related to the project.
You could submit a pull request to fix it, you know.
I think this should be done. I think clearly defined scope is extremely important, as ability to contribute good code is not in any way related to one's other life decisions. CoC should be clearly defined to govern conduct related to the project and nothing more. This limitation should be immutable and not subject to interpretation or revision by anyone.
I can understand concerns others have with CoC, especially with abusive behavior (e.g. deplatform, un-person) that comes from SJW camp. Ideally CoC should be used to stop both "Show Boobz or GTFO" behavior and "Trump voters are racist, we don't accept commits from racist" behavior.
I think you can. Nothing in CoC states that you must also adopt the manifesto. Sure, this CoC was produced by dubious people with very questionable intentions. Likewise, GPL license is based on Stallman's ideas. This doesn't mean that we have to adopt all of the Stallman's extreme views about software in their entirety. I am still hopeful that sanity will prevail and it won't go past CoC. However, I do understand and share your concerns.
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of
representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail
address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
representative at an online or offline event.
Looks good. So if you are not acting on behalf of the project, use official project email for communication, or were officially appointed representative, then your conduct has no relationship with this. Extreme example - Nazi would still be able to contribute as long as Nazi-related speech is kept out of commits, discussions, mailing list, and group events.
Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Ugh, what? Why bother defining the above applicability rules and then inserting this gigantic "scope is what project maintainers decide the scope is"? This seems like a huge flaw that has to be fixed.
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as
contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and
our community a harassment-free experience for 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, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
Our Standards
=============
Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment
include:
* Using welcoming and inclusive language
* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
* Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
* Focusing on what is best for the community
* Showing empathy towards other community members
Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
* The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or
advances
* Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
* Public or private harassment
* Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
address, without explicit permission
* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
professional setting
Our Responsibilities
====================
Maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior
and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to
any instances of unacceptable behavior.
Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject
comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are
not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any
contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening,
offensive, or harmful.
Scope
=====
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of
representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail
address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be
further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Enforcement
===========
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be
reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at
. All complaints will be reviewed and
investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and
appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain
confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of
specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may
face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the
project’s leadership.
I just don't see a way we can progress forward if we discard concept of merit. Hierarchies based on other concepts (e.g. piety, clan identity, wealth) historically were nothing short of disastrous. I don't see how hierarchy based on group identity that SJWs are building will be anything short of disastrous. Our technological civilization is truly fucked if they succeed and our descendants won't know how to maintain what we built even if they reach ideal equality and perfect diversity.
Your data is wrong or maybe it is just wrong for climate where I live. Adding recycled rubber notably reduces durability of roads here. They had to redo road near where I live in just 2 years after trying this method.
Where I live they tried adding mulched rubber tires to asphalt, this resulted in road surfaces that are less durable (more potholes) and the practice was abandoned.
My experiences that papers submitted from China are categorically more likely to be fraudulent. You certainly get bad submission from Western Universities, but they are rarely outright and obvious fraud and plagiarism, the reverse is true for submissions coming from Chinese Universities.
From what I have seen so far Chinese papers are universally fraud. I am on peer review lists for a number of papers, and from what I have seen it is mostly junk papers that are coming out of China. Not just language, that can be forgiven/edited, but bad methods, obviously cooked data, blatant plagiarism.
How about just plain old stage 3 cancer that prevents you from continuing working? Can you play out two scenarios: a) gainfully employed Canadian b) gainfully employed American with insurance that provides coverage but no additional disability insurance. Assume diagnosis, radiation, then 3 month until disability due to surgery, follow up chemo and 2 years for recovery involving therapy.
Unfortunately, unless you are willing to live with a flip phone someone going to spy on you. It might as well be people that don't have a search engine and are not so far known for selling your data to advertisers.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux Community isn't a social network, support group, or law enforcement organization. It has a clearly defined purpose - to produce Linux kernel of best possible quality in shortest amount of time. You are trying to subvert and re-purpose this organization to suit your priorities and in doing so you are presuming to impose your values and your priorities on others. You are welcome to fork Linux and focus forked project on your specific list of priorities.
I often call out SJW on their flawed thinking in this regard, so it is only fair I call you out when you make the same mistake. Just because someone is Notorious Social Justice Warrior and done many SJW things, it doesn't mean that CoC they wrote is necessary flawed. People tend to be more than one thing. If it is possible to be a raging asshole and brilliant coder, then it also follows that it is possible to be a raging SJW and write good CoC.
While I am not asserting that this CoC is good, I am asserting that we shouldn't criticize it solely based on political views of its author.
I think the best defense against SJW is to implement this CoC then work on refining it. Fix the areas where it is ambiguous or invites abuses. Like imprecise scope definition.
> if it is open then law enforcement would have no problems prosecuting such behavior.
What world do you live in? We can't get people to agree that sexual harassment is even a thing, or should be legally actionable; you really think "law enforcement" is going to "prosecute" that?
I recommend you work on that problem instead of trying to find alternative law enforcement mechanisms by re-purposing other organizations.
Linux community is designed to produce Linux kernel, not police sexual harassment in everyday life.
So if I were a known and public Linux maintainer, go to a tech conference, and start openly sexually harassing women attendees, or berating minorities who are showing interest in technology... you're saying the Linux Community should have no ability to distance themselves from that contributor in the form of revoking write access?
Are you sure that's what you want?
Unless tech conference is sponsored/related by Linux, then "do nothing" is correct approach. Sexual harassment is against the law, if it is open then law enforcement would have no problems prosecuting such behavior.
To flip this example on you:
So if I were a known and public Linux maintainer, sponsor a pro-life initiative in my state... you're saying the Linux Community should have to distance themselves from that contributor in the form of revoking write access when someone complains?
Give us a specific example of a flaw that can't be addressed in a way that is compatible with "using welcoming and inclusive language".
I'll see if I can address it in a way that meets those requirements if you give me an example.
This comment does not follow CoC: AmiMoJo, you inbred SJW, you wouldn't know good code if you see it. How would you know how to properly criticize it, fuckwit?
This comment does follow CoC: AmiMoJo, while it is possible to criticize someone constructively, it is not only time consuming, it also presupposes that other party is open to criticism. People fail to learn all the time, and it could be the case that shunning them is the necessary approach.
Social Justice Warriors advocate social justice in the same way as The National Socialist German Worker's Party advocated rights of Jewish workers in Germany.
The "these people might gain a degree of legitimacy by associating with Linux" problem is categorically different from "these people will end meritocracy in Linux" problem. One is a marginal concern, and another one existential crisis.
Because there may be times where they may be socially associated with an organization, but not acting on "official" behalf of them. As a contrived example, if they're attending an industry conference where they're not an "appointed representative", people may still identify them as a "Linux maintainer".
I don't disagree that it's ambiguous, but with people attempting to be hyper-literal in order to defend their terrible behavior as unactionable, I don't see any way it couldn't be. They have to leave themselves room to allow a case-by-case basis in egregious circumstances.
It should be unactionable, because alternative is subjective and selective policing and that is orders of magnitude worse. My view that it shouldn't be up to a project to police terrible behaviour that is not directly related to the project.
You could submit a pull request to fix it, you know.
I think this should be done. I think clearly defined scope is extremely important, as ability to contribute good code is not in any way related to one's other life decisions. CoC should be clearly defined to govern conduct related to the project and nothing more. This limitation should be immutable and not subject to interpretation or revision by anyone.
I can understand concerns others have with CoC, especially with abusive behavior (e.g. deplatform, un-person) that comes from SJW camp. Ideally CoC should be used to stop both "Show Boobz or GTFO" behavior and "Trump voters are racist, we don't accept commits from racist" behavior.
One really can't discuss the wording of the CoC without discussing the Contributor Covenant and the larger philosophical goals of the Post-Meritocracy manifesto
I think you can. Nothing in CoC states that you must also adopt the manifesto. Sure, this CoC was produced by dubious people with very questionable intentions. Likewise, GPL license is based on Stallman's ideas. This doesn't mean that we have to adopt all of the Stallman's extreme views about software in their entirety. I am still hopeful that sanity will prevail and it won't go past CoC. However, I do understand and share your concerns.
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.
Looks good. So if you are not acting on behalf of the project, use official project email for communication, or were officially appointed representative, then your conduct has no relationship with this. Extreme example - Nazi would still be able to contribute as long as Nazi-related speech is kept out of commits, discussions, mailing list, and group events.
Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Ugh, what? Why bother defining the above applicability rules and then inserting this gigantic "scope is what project maintainers decide the scope is"? This seems like a huge flaw that has to be fixed.
Our Pledge
===========
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as
contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and
our community a harassment-free experience for 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, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
Our Standards
=============
Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment
include:
* Using welcoming and inclusive language
* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
* Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
* Focusing on what is best for the community
* Showing empathy towards other community members
Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
* The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or
advances
* Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
* Public or private harassment
* Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
address, without explicit permission
* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
professional setting
Our Responsibilities
====================
Maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior
and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to
any instances of unacceptable behavior.
Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject
comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are
not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any
contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening,
offensive, or harmful.
Scope
=====
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of
representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail
address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be
further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Enforcement
===========
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be
reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at
. All complaints will be reviewed and
investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and
appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain
confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of
specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may
face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the
project’s leadership.
Magic the Gathering card packs are basically loot boxes.
Yes, but there is "truth in advertising" aspect to this. The entire point of MtG are card packs, it isn't stapled to something else unrelated.
EA isn't selling Lootbox the Gathering games, they are selling other types of games (e.g. FPS) and then force lootboxes on players.
Perhaps SJWs are another factor in the Drake equation?
I just don't see a way we can progress forward if we discard concept of merit. Hierarchies based on other concepts (e.g. piety, clan identity, wealth) historically were nothing short of disastrous. I don't see how hierarchy based on group identity that SJWs are building will be anything short of disastrous. Our technological civilization is truly fucked if they succeed and our descendants won't know how to maintain what we built even if they reach ideal equality and perfect diversity.
Your data is wrong or maybe it is just wrong for climate where I live. Adding recycled rubber notably reduces durability of roads here. They had to redo road near where I live in just 2 years after trying this method.
Where I live they tried adding mulched rubber tires to asphalt, this resulted in road surfaces that are less durable (more potholes) and the practice was abandoned.
How is this different?
My experiences that papers submitted from China are categorically more likely to be fraudulent. You certainly get bad submission from Western Universities, but they are rarely outright and obvious fraud and plagiarism, the reverse is true for submissions coming from Chinese Universities.
From what I have seen so far Chinese papers are universally fraud. I am on peer review lists for a number of papers, and from what I have seen it is mostly junk papers that are coming out of China. Not just language, that can be forgiven/edited, but bad methods, obviously cooked data, blatant plagiarism.
How about just plain old stage 3 cancer that prevents you from continuing working? Can you play out two scenarios: a) gainfully employed Canadian b) gainfully employed American with insurance that provides coverage but no additional disability insurance. Assume diagnosis, radiation, then 3 month until disability due to surgery, follow up chemo and 2 years for recovery involving therapy.
Unfortunately, unless you are willing to live with a flip phone someone going to spy on you. It might as well be people that don't have a search engine and are not so far known for selling your data to advertisers.
Now to be fair list downsides of US system, where you are seen immediately but go bankrupt if it is anything serious and long-term.
The key advantage of Canadian system is that your health care is not tied to your ability to pay.
Quebec underfunded healthcare for years, the rest of Canada is in much better shape.
Additionally, if found guilty, the verdict won't be searchable from Google, so nobody would know about it.
"No fucking way."
Cure for cancer was just discovered, but it is only available as IoT.
Only if they pry one into my cold dead hands!