4 ms·

I think all this handwringing over the CoC would have more weight for me if: a) It came from major Linux contributors. b) It didn't assume a conspiracy to not

I think all this handwringing over the CoC would have more weight for me if: a) It came from major Linux contributors. b) It didn't assume a conspiracy to not only oust Linus but also get him to dance to their tune.

wmil 8y ago
It's not really a conspiracy theory. A "New Yorker" writer has publicly claimed credit for Torvalds' change of heart. There was a massive hit piece ready to go if he didn't accept the CoC and step down. https://www.itwire.com/open-source/84590-new-yorker-claims-credit-for-torvalds-apology-on-behaviour.html https://www.itwire.com/open-source/84590-new-yorker-claims-c...
- ChrisSD 8y ago
  But the new yorker ran[0] the "hit piece" so why would that buy his cooperation? And it's not like articles calling out Linus are anything new. [0]: https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/after-years-of-abusive-e-mails-the-creator-of-linux-steps-aside https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/after-years-of-ab...
  - wmil 8y ago
    If he hadn't stepped aside it would have been paired with activists calling for him to be forced out and putting pressure on corporate partners to denounce him and take over control of kernel development.
forgottenpass 8y ago
You're using a line of argument that I see quite often in day to day stuff (outside the kernel) so I have to push back on this. >would have more weight for me if [...] It came from major Linux contributors. The group of people you would give the most weight to the opinion of are also the group under the most pressured not to voice dissent publicly. It isn't wrong to look to them or give large weight to their positions. The error is in assuming that we can know their position beyond their choice not to rock the boat. It might be very easy (they're in full agreement) or very tricky (blood boiling, but "not their hill to die on"). All we know is that they do not dissent to the level that they are willing to risk their involvement in the project at hand, or have a damaged reputation when they try to participate in another.
- ChrisSD 8y ago
  Perhaps. But usually if their blood is boiling they will leak indirectly as anonymous sources, via unnamed "friends", or whatever other euphemism the press likes to use.

wmil 8y ago

It's not really a conspiracy theory. A "New Yorker" writer has publicly claimed credit for Torvalds' change of heart. There was a massive hit piece ready to go if he didn't accept the CoC and step down. https://www.itwire.com/open-source/84590-new-yorker-claims-credit-for-torvalds-apology-on-behaviour.html https://www.itwire.com/open-source/84590-new-yorker-claims-c...

ChrisSD 8y ago
But the new yorker ran[0] the "hit piece" so why would that buy his cooperation? And it's not like articles calling out Linus are anything new. [0]: https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/after-years-of-abusive-e-mails-the-creator-of-linux-steps-aside https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/after-years-of-ab...
- wmil 8y ago
  If he hadn't stepped aside it would have been paired with activists calling for him to be forced out and putting pressure on corporate partners to denounce him and take over control of kernel development.

forgottenpass 8y ago

You're using a line of argument that I see quite often in day to day stuff (outside the kernel) so I have to push back on this. >would have more weight for me if [...] It came from major Linux contributors. The group of people you would give the most weight to the opinion of are also the group under the most pressured not to voice dissent publicly. It isn't wrong to look to them or give large weight to their positions. The error is in assuming that we can know their position beyond their choice not to rock the boat. It might be very easy (they're in full agreement) or very tricky (blood boiling, but "not their hill to die on"). All we know is that they do not dissent to the level that they are willing to risk their involvement in the project at hand, or have a damaged reputation when they try to participate in another.

ChrisSD 8y ago
Perhaps. But usually if their blood is boiling they will leak indirectly as anonymous sources, via unnamed "friends", or whatever other euphemism the press likes to use.