5 ms·

Interesting read, but I can't see how the CoC changes the "telos", if anyone can help? I.e. from my point of view, having a CoC doesn't change the end goal, sin

Interesting read, but I can't see how the CoC changes the "telos", if anyone can help? I.e. from my point of view, having a CoC doesn't change the end goal, since the end goal was never, not having a CoC, and the end goal was never a meritocracy, it was create a kernel (nor was it to have a CoC, again it's an implementation detail). So I'd say, in relation to this post, the question is, does the CoC bring "us" closer/further to our "telos". I would argue that it does, but of course some disagree. Further, there's the argument that aslong as something doesn't hinder the "telos", and it has a positive impact on the community, why not do so?

throwanem 8y ago
An excellent point. Here's where esr palms the card, my emphasis: "...[Accusing anti-CoC community members of sexism and the like] can only inflame their sense that the group telos is being hijacked. They make it clear; they signed on to participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards, and they think that is being taken [away] from them." Is the telos to produce a kernel, or is the telos to "participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards"? ESR's piece gives much overt consideration to the question of "what is the telos?", but even granting that that question is not itself disingenuous in the context of LKML, the quoted passage somewhat deftly sneaks in an answer of its own, between all the many waves of hands about how "[that] last paragraph may sound like I have strayed from neutrality into making a value claim, but not really" and the like. I suspect a large number of people with commits in the kernel trunk would be surprised to learn that they're really there for the meritocracy, rather than for the work...
- hnkf 8y ago
  Yours is a very interesting observation. You’re saying that either: a) You’re there to work on the kernel, and because that’s the end goal you out up with the CoC; b) You’re there for the reputation and/or meritocracy, so the CoC feels like a personal attack. Is that it?
  - throwanem 8y ago
    I'm saying that, as I read ESR's post, it implicitly imputes the latter motivation in an argument which overtly is about either the former, or the (putative) question of what really is the telos in the context of LKML and Linux kernel development generally - and, in so doing, equates the two in a way that I think isn't reasonable to do without explicitly declaring and supporting the equation. Be clear, though: this is nothing but my reading of ESR's statement of his own perspective on the issue, even all the facts of which are somewhat difficult to identify without ambiguity. I'm not especially interested in trying to make any larger argument than that, and I'm not at all sure that the desire for meritocracy and reputation is incompatible with the adoption of an explicit code of conduct requiring that kernel contributors, while contributing to the kernel, eschew gratuitous misbehavior of the sort which tends to drive other contributors and potential contributors away from the project. As I read the CoC in question (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-condu...), I see nothing in it which suggests any intent beyond that. In particular, I see nothing suggesting any intent toward thought policing, or policing of behavior outside the context of interactions in the Linux kernel development community, or declared public representation of same. And the Technical Advisory Board, charged with enforcement of the CoC, is just that - technical. So I really don't know where all this culture war stuff is coming from, or why anyone sees a need for it. Okay, that's a lie. I do know where it's coming from, and why people on both sides see a need for it. It's just that I wish they didn't - again, on both sides - because the Linux kernel is too important a technological artifact to be made this sort of battlefield. I'm sure it'll blow over in the end, and that the silent majority that invariably constitutes the audience for such engagements will go on doing as they do, not at all ruffled by the explicit adoption of a standard of behavior that really says nothing more than "don't be an asshole, and if you're enough of an asshole, we won't let you work with us any more". That is to say - the same rule that applies everywhere, whether explicitly stated or otherwise. In my experience, the correlation between worthwhile kernel contributors, and people who enshrine Linus Torvalds' own somewhat infamous former style of comportment as somehow essential to technical excellence in the project, is negligible unto imperceptibility - so I see no reason to imagine that the project itself is imperiled by this current contretemps. That contention is really the only reason why it's achieved as wide a currency as it has, I think; absent the - in my reading highly questionable - idea that a significant fraction of kernel contributors will withdraw their contributions in a way that actively harms further development, there's no reason I can see for so many pundits of ESR's and /g/'s stripe to weigh in so heavily and with such typical respect for the facts and realities of the matters on which they choose so to speak.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Viliam1234 8y ago
  Reputational awards are the standard "payment" for producing free software. Removing them reduces the number of people willing to work on the software, which reduces the probability of the software being completed successfully. This is a bit like asking "is your goal to bake bread, or to use flour?", and when the baker says "to bake bread, obviously", replying "so you don't mind if we just throw away all your flour, right?". I would side with the baker who says that people who go around throwing away the flour are probably doing it to sabotage baking bread, not because they want to improve the quality of bread.
  - throwanem 8y ago
    Who is suggesting that reputational rewards for merged kernel pulls be removed? Or that that's even possible? A merged pull remains a merged pull. Accepted contributions remain accepted contributions. The concept of the "post-meritocracy manifesto" isn't that the value of contribution should change. It's not saying that solid kernel commits don't count any more. It's saying that writing solid documentation and dealing effectively with people count too.
    - Viliam1234 8y ago
      > It's saying that writing solid documentation and dealing effectively with people count too. The Linux Documentation Project existed long before these people came. And if "dealing effectively with people" is what we currently observe, I'd say no thanks.
LyndsySimon 8y ago
> I.e. from my point of view, having a CoC doesn't change the end goal, since the end goal was never, not having a CoC, and the end goal was never a meritocracy, it was create a kernel (nor was it to have a CoC, again it's an implementation detail). I think this is the root of the issue - the previous state (not having a CoC) allowed contributors to assign their own telos, based on their perception. Creating a CoC creates a framework where none existed, and some people don't agree with that framework. The CoC - any CoC - requires that all members agree on a telos. That wasn't necessary before.
- amaccuish 8y ago
  > The CoC - any CoC - requires that all members agree on a telos. That wasn't necessary before Does it though? All it says to me, that whilst working towards this "telos", do it in a respectful manner.
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    I'm tempted to point out specifically what I take issue with, but honestly, I'm not a kernel developer so my opinion on the issue doesn't much matter. Instead, all I'm trying to say is that while you see it in that light, others don't. Those others must make a decision - accept the change, quietly leave the project, or use the legal means at their disposal to disassociate themselves and damage the project in the process. That decision wasn't required of them before the CoC was created.
  - ArchTypical 8y ago
    > Does it though? It does more than that. It allows for a path forward/establishes a slippery slope. Now a group that is most earnestly behind the implementation of the CoC to now point to this as a tipping point where the tyranny of the majority is accepted (and can now make modifications since you already agreed to a CoC, what are some nomic modifications to you?). This runs counter to the existing, unstable hierarchy.
    - 51lver 8y ago

throwanem 8y ago

An excellent point. Here's where esr palms the card, my emphasis: "...[Accusing anti-CoC community members of sexism and the like] can only inflame their sense that the group telos is being hijacked. They make it clear; they signed on to participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards, and they think that is being taken [away] from them." Is the telos to produce a kernel, or is the telos to "participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards"? ESR's piece gives much overt consideration to the question of "what is the telos?", but even granting that that question is not itself disingenuous in the context of LKML, the quoted passage somewhat deftly sneaks in an answer of its own, between all the many waves of hands about how "[that] last paragraph may sound like I have strayed from neutrality into making a value claim, but not really" and the like. I suspect a large number of people with commits in the kernel trunk would be surprised to learn that they're really there for the meritocracy, rather than for the work...

hnkf 8y ago
Yours is a very interesting observation. You’re saying that either: a) You’re there to work on the kernel, and because that’s the end goal you out up with the CoC; b) You’re there for the reputation and/or meritocracy, so the CoC feels like a personal attack. Is that it?
- throwanem 8y ago
  I'm saying that, as I read ESR's post, it implicitly imputes the latter motivation in an argument which overtly is about either the former, or the (putative) question of what really is the telos in the context of LKML and Linux kernel development generally - and, in so doing, equates the two in a way that I think isn't reasonable to do without explicitly declaring and supporting the equation. Be clear, though: this is nothing but my reading of ESR's statement of his own perspective on the issue, even all the facts of which are somewhat difficult to identify without ambiguity. I'm not especially interested in trying to make any larger argument than that, and I'm not at all sure that the desire for meritocracy and reputation is incompatible with the adoption of an explicit code of conduct requiring that kernel contributors, while contributing to the kernel, eschew gratuitous misbehavior of the sort which tends to drive other contributors and potential contributors away from the project. As I read the CoC in question (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-condu...), I see nothing in it which suggests any intent beyond that. In particular, I see nothing suggesting any intent toward thought policing, or policing of behavior outside the context of interactions in the Linux kernel development community, or declared public representation of same. And the Technical Advisory Board, charged with enforcement of the CoC, is just that - technical. So I really don't know where all this culture war stuff is coming from, or why anyone sees a need for it. Okay, that's a lie. I do know where it's coming from, and why people on both sides see a need for it. It's just that I wish they didn't - again, on both sides - because the Linux kernel is too important a technological artifact to be made this sort of battlefield. I'm sure it'll blow over in the end, and that the silent majority that invariably constitutes the audience for such engagements will go on doing as they do, not at all ruffled by the explicit adoption of a standard of behavior that really says nothing more than "don't be an asshole, and if you're enough of an asshole, we won't let you work with us any more". That is to say - the same rule that applies everywhere, whether explicitly stated or otherwise. In my experience, the correlation between worthwhile kernel contributors, and people who enshrine Linus Torvalds' own somewhat infamous former style of comportment as somehow essential to technical excellence in the project, is negligible unto imperceptibility - so I see no reason to imagine that the project itself is imperiled by this current contretemps. That contention is really the only reason why it's achieved as wide a currency as it has, I think; absent the - in my reading highly questionable - idea that a significant fraction of kernel contributors will withdraw their contributions in a way that actively harms further development, there's no reason I can see for so many pundits of ESR's and /g/'s stripe to weigh in so heavily and with such typical respect for the facts and realities of the matters on which they choose so to speak.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Viliam1234 8y ago
Reputational awards are the standard "payment" for producing free software. Removing them reduces the number of people willing to work on the software, which reduces the probability of the software being completed successfully. This is a bit like asking "is your goal to bake bread, or to use flour?", and when the baker says "to bake bread, obviously", replying "so you don't mind if we just throw away all your flour, right?". I would side with the baker who says that people who go around throwing away the flour are probably doing it to sabotage baking bread, not because they want to improve the quality of bread.
- throwanem 8y ago
  Who is suggesting that reputational rewards for merged kernel pulls be removed? Or that that's even possible? A merged pull remains a merged pull. Accepted contributions remain accepted contributions. The concept of the "post-meritocracy manifesto" isn't that the value of contribution should change. It's not saying that solid kernel commits don't count any more. It's saying that writing solid documentation and dealing effectively with people count too.
  - Viliam1234 8y ago
    > It's saying that writing solid documentation and dealing effectively with people count too. The Linux Documentation Project existed long before these people came. And if "dealing effectively with people" is what we currently observe, I'd say no thanks.

LyndsySimon 8y ago

> I.e. from my point of view, having a CoC doesn't change the end goal, since the end goal was never, not having a CoC, and the end goal was never a meritocracy, it was create a kernel (nor was it to have a CoC, again it's an implementation detail). I think this is the root of the issue - the previous state (not having a CoC) allowed contributors to assign their own telos, based on their perception. Creating a CoC creates a framework where none existed, and some people don't agree with that framework. The CoC - any CoC - requires that all members agree on a telos. That wasn't necessary before.

amaccuish 8y ago
> The CoC - any CoC - requires that all members agree on a telos. That wasn't necessary before Does it though? All it says to me, that whilst working towards this "telos", do it in a respectful manner.
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  I'm tempted to point out specifically what I take issue with, but honestly, I'm not a kernel developer so my opinion on the issue doesn't much matter. Instead, all I'm trying to say is that while you see it in that light, others don't. Those others must make a decision - accept the change, quietly leave the project, or use the legal means at their disposal to disassociate themselves and damage the project in the process. That decision wasn't required of them before the CoC was created.
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > Does it though? It does more than that. It allows for a path forward/establishes a slippery slope. Now a group that is most earnestly behind the implementation of the CoC to now point to this as a tipping point where the tyranny of the majority is accepted (and can now make modifications since you already agreed to a CoC, what are some nomic modifications to you?). This runs counter to the existing, unstable hierarchy.
  - 51lver 8y ago