5 ms·

> 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 t

• 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.