3 ms·

You should accept the politics if you agree with them. Linux should change its politics if its major contributors agree they should be changed, and at least sev

You should accept the politics if you agree with them. Linux should change its politics if its major contributors agree they should be changed, and at least seven of them - including Linus himself - do. I'm not sure why this is controversial - the people who can implement the CoC are the same people who generally decide where the project goes, same as always (just ask the people behind GRSecurity). I'm not sure why some people have this illusion that they somehow have a (moral?) veto power to stop any changes they dislike.

mbrumlow 8y ago
I think the problem has to do with how this potcular CoC came about to be the de facto CoC. There is a lot of evidence in screenshots and wayback machine that suggest that this CoC was strongarmed into a lot of projects, and the ones that resisted have been put into a bad light. Not to mention the author of the CoC started this process while working at Github by making it easy to add a CoC and badgering projects that don't have a CoC to add one. Low and behold the author's CoC is the first one and recommended for all projects. I think many people who seem to hate the CoC would be fine with a community driven and created CoC -- what they really dislike is the particular CoC and the political agenda of the author of said CoC. I wonder how it got into 40k+ projects near overnight... And then this used as a beating stick "40k others have done it why have you not?". This type of attitude is unhealthy for everybody. The said CoC is the "Contributors Covenant". There is so much more to say about this CoC. I can only hope that the open source community will build a proper CoC that is truy community driven and actually has the goal of bringing people together vs being a stick to hit people with.
- apple4ever 8y ago
  I believe most of the community would be totally fine with a CoC that banned things commonly agreed as bad (sexual harassment, trolling, etc) with no ulterior motive. As you said, that's not what happened here. As the writer of the "Contributors Covenant" has made clear, there is an ulterior motive. She has a political agenda. I think if Linus chose any other CoC, there would be no uproar.

mbrumlow 8y ago

I think the problem has to do with how this potcular CoC came about to be the de facto CoC. There is a lot of evidence in screenshots and wayback machine that suggest that this CoC was strongarmed into a lot of projects, and the ones that resisted have been put into a bad light. Not to mention the author of the CoC started this process while working at Github by making it easy to add a CoC and badgering projects that don't have a CoC to add one. Low and behold the author's CoC is the first one and recommended for all projects. I think many people who seem to hate the CoC would be fine with a community driven and created CoC -- what they really dislike is the particular CoC and the political agenda of the author of said CoC. I wonder how it got into 40k+ projects near overnight... And then this used as a beating stick "40k others have done it why have you not?". This type of attitude is unhealthy for everybody. The said CoC is the "Contributors Covenant". There is so much more to say about this CoC. I can only hope that the open source community will build a proper CoC that is truy community driven and actually has the goal of bringing people together vs being a stick to hit people with.

apple4ever 8y ago
I believe most of the community would be totally fine with a CoC that banned things commonly agreed as bad (sexual harassment, trolling, etc) with no ulterior motive. As you said, that's not what happened here. As the writer of the "Contributors Covenant" has made clear, there is an ulterior motive. She has a political agenda. I think if Linus chose any other CoC, there would be no uproar.