3 ms·

> 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

> 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
    It's worse than that. Only corporations are capable of whitewashing their image well enough to be acceptable. All _real_ people are flawed in mind and body and SOMEONE will find a reason to reject them, which is exactly what these CoCs claim to want to avoid. Why don't we all just be people, accept that our best foot is not always the forward one, and accept positive contribution wherever it can be found.
lliamander 8y ago
There was a CoC (The Code of Conflict) before this new one, and laid out pretty well what the telos was[0]. It was actually pretty mild, and did forbid harassment, but its purpose was to highlight how producing the best possible kernel was the ethos of the community. Some will claim of course that it didn't do enough to highlight what was considered harassment, or that it didn't really have teeth because it didn't specify any consequences for bad behavior. (The TAB members, for their part, are trying to allay the concerns of critics of the new CoC by essentially claiming that it still has no teeth, because the TAB cannot prevent maintainers from accepting contributions from people who allegedly violate the CoC). The new CoC has a specifically different primary purpose: > 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 In other words, the goal has shifted from producing the best possible kernel to creating a welcoming environment for everyone. Now, even if you believe both are good goals, and even if you believe that these goals can be pursued in a synergistic manner, there's still a question of which is more fundamental to the ethos of the community. [0]https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/code-of-conflict.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/code-of-confli...

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
  It's worse than that. Only corporations are capable of whitewashing their image well enough to be acceptable. All _real_ people are flawed in mind and body and SOMEONE will find a reason to reject them, which is exactly what these CoCs claim to want to avoid. Why don't we all just be people, accept that our best foot is not always the forward one, and accept positive contribution wherever it can be found.

lliamander 8y ago

There was a CoC (The Code of Conflict) before this new one, and laid out pretty well what the telos was[0]. It was actually pretty mild, and did forbid harassment, but its purpose was to highlight how producing the best possible kernel was the ethos of the community. Some will claim of course that it didn't do enough to highlight what was considered harassment, or that it didn't really have teeth because it didn't specify any consequences for bad behavior. (The TAB members, for their part, are trying to allay the concerns of critics of the new CoC by essentially claiming that it still has no teeth, because the TAB cannot prevent maintainers from accepting contributions from people who allegedly violate the CoC). The new CoC has a specifically different primary purpose: > 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 In other words, the goal has shifted from producing the best possible kernel to creating a welcoming environment for everyone. Now, even if you believe both are good goals, and even if you believe that these goals can be pursued in a synergistic manner, there's still a question of which is more fundamental to the ethos of the community. [0]https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/code-of-conflict.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/code-of-confli...