4 ms·

"the problem is that the same thing can be said vis-a-vis the COC toting social justice warriors" I'm no friend to some of the people pushing this. Just a coup

"the problem is that the same thing can be said vis-a-vis the COC toting social justice warriors" I'm no friend to some of the people pushing this. Just a couple of days ago, I was in a Twitter argument with some of them as they tried to turn this into part of their "kill Linux Foundation" feud. They definitely do have their own faults, but I still think there's a difference. They're willing to put in place a set of rules that could very well be used against them in their own immoderate moments. Some have already pointed this out. The anti-CoC crowd accept no explicit limitation. I'm not trying to put one above another, but those positions are different.

inawarminister 8y ago
>The anti-CoC crowd accept no explicit limitation Ah, no, the anti-CoC crowd wants the status quo antebellum, which DOES have explicit limitations; for example: GPL-2.0, and of course whether your contribution is accepted or not by the main kernel dev team. Of course, all these limitations are of CODE, not behaviours, but is it important for an open source project (theoretically) open to all members of humanity to contribute, no matter how evil or repugnant their personal views are, to regulate this? Does the fact that ReiserFS was developed by a murderer mean that we need to explicitly delete all his contributions to the kernel? [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2006/10/7956/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2006/10/7956/ >Wikipedia: ReiserFS is currently supported on Linux (without quota support) licensed as GPLv2. Introduced in version 2.4.1 of the Linux kernel, it was the first journaling file system to be included in the standard kernel
dx87 8y ago
The set of rules won't be used against them though, and they know it. The creator of the new Linux CoC has a history of being hateful and organizing mobs on twitter to harass project owners, yet they aren't suffering repercussions from it. They push for projects to add their CoC so they can use it as a weapon against people they don't like, but know they're safe because they won't use it against each other. They're already using it as a reason to start harassing kernel maintainers (calling Theodore Tso a "rape apologist"), yet they aren't holding each other accountable for their own CoC violations.

inawarminister 8y ago

>The anti-CoC crowd accept no explicit limitation Ah, no, the anti-CoC crowd wants the status quo antebellum, which DOES have explicit limitations; for example: GPL-2.0, and of course whether your contribution is accepted or not by the main kernel dev team. Of course, all these limitations are of CODE, not behaviours, but is it important for an open source project (theoretically) open to all members of humanity to contribute, no matter how evil or repugnant their personal views are, to regulate this? Does the fact that ReiserFS was developed by a murderer mean that we need to explicitly delete all his contributions to the kernel? [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2006/10/7956/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2006/10/7956/ >Wikipedia: ReiserFS is currently supported on Linux (without quota support) licensed as GPLv2. Introduced in version 2.4.1 of the Linux kernel, it was the first journaling file system to be included in the standard kernel

dx87 8y ago

The set of rules won't be used against them though, and they know it. The creator of the new Linux CoC has a history of being hateful and organizing mobs on twitter to harass project owners, yet they aren't suffering repercussions from it. They push for projects to add their CoC so they can use it as a weapon against people they don't like, but know they're safe because they won't use it against each other. They're already using it as a reason to start harassing kernel maintainers (calling Theodore Tso a "rape apologist"), yet they aren't holding each other accountable for their own CoC violations.