8 ms·

Linux CoC Announces Decision Wrt Kent Overstreet (Bcachefs)

62 points by pantalaimon 2y ago

meiraleal 2y ago
Oh, well. I tried to side with Kent but there is no way. His reply sounds like someone thinking about themselves as super-powerful just to have their super-powers stripped. Schadenfreude
PaulCarrack 2y ago
What he said wasn't even nearly as bad as what I've seen Linus say in other threads over the years. Is / was Linus Torvalds ever subject to a "tribunal" like Kent just was? In the end, it's the users that end up suffering. The guy (Hocko) kept making mistake after mistake and Kent struggled to get him to do anything remotely net positive with regard to the issues in that original thread. I'm not arguing that what Kent did was right or wrong, but I would be curious to hear what other ways people work with remote developers who are awful, especially when they work for other companies. You can't just fire them, so I understand the frustration here.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  The CoC is new, so no Linus wasn't subject to it in the past.
- jitl 2y ago
  Yes, Linus took some time off to “learn empathy” https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/09/linus-torvalds-apologizes-for-years-of-being-a-jerk-takes-time-off-to-learn-empathy/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/09/linus-torvalds-apolo... And I would say on a whole his behavior after 2018 has been less rude although he is still quite frank when necessary. I think it’s a positive change. I think Linus’s message from 2018 is good perspective here: when someone behaves in a way that harms the mission of the kernel it’s better to try to change that behavior at the expensive of that person’s contributions for a limited time, rather than having the bad behavior negatively impact all other contributors forever. https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/16/167 https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/16/167
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    There is a huge difference between "frank" and "abusive." One does not need to be abusive to "tell it like it is" (the most common phrase I heard people utter in defense of Linus's abhorrent behavior toward developers.) Linus was a bully who let authoring the Linux kernel go to his head and inflate his ego.
- uluyol 2y ago
  Around the time the CoC was being established, Linus went to therapy. If I recall correctly, some people had spoke to him about his behaviors and he decided to do something about it. I think it was done in private so it's unclear how much of it was pressure vs his own decision. His tone has become much less aggressive since.
  - LtWorf 2y ago
    He's been unpleasant also after he came back. Not as extreme maybe, but certainly not nice.
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      He should get some tips from Theo. :D
    - tredre3 2y ago
      Honesty is often unpleasant, especially when someone tells us that our work isn't good enough. But it is a required thing from a leader. The important thing is that he's cut down on needless personal insults.
      - LtWorf 2y ago
        But Linus isn't honest. I'm sure he thinks he is, but he's not always "objective". So while he thinks he's being honest, what he's saying can be untrue anyway. And of course he's Linus and you're a nobody so nobody will ever listen to the other side of the completely subjective "facts"
        marcusb 2y ago
        Being honest doesn’t have anything to do with being objectively correct, unless a person is presenting their subjective feelings as objective fact. Saying to someone “your work is not good enough for me” is a subjective statement; whether or not it is honest depends on whether or not it is reflective of the speaker’s beliefs about the quality of the work. A leader not speaking up when they receive subpar work is dishonest, and it is fundamentally unfair to the person doing the work.
- unsnap_biceps 2y ago
  Linus did take a break to work on his anger issues and he has been very noticeably improved these last 6 years. While I don't think it was due to a tribunal, but I think enough other developers told him in private to work on it. https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/17/linus_torvalds_linux_apology_break/ https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/17/linus_torvalds_linux_...
  - Filligree 2y ago
    Came a bit too late for me; I spent some time fixing bugs in an ISDN driver in my teens, but Linus’ reputation prevented me from ever trying to upstream it.
    - LtWorf 2y ago
      From having dealt with him personally, you probably saved yourself a lot of trouble.
- Twirrim 2y ago
  The current CoC came out from a particularly bad incident with Linus, which he signed off on at the same time as he went into therapy and started working on himself. There is a remarkable difference in the before and after. > I'm not arguing that what Kent did was right or wrong, but I would be curious to hear what other ways people work with remote developers who are awful, especially when they work for other companies. You can't just fire them, so I understand the frustration here. They absolutely can "fire" them, by making a decision not to accept any contribution from them.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  > I'm not arguing that what Kent did was right or wrong You are actually arguing that it was right. > The guy (Hocko) kept making mistake after mistake and Kent struggled to get him to do anything remotely net positive That’s not really an excuse for abuse. This kind of comment is why we need a CoC committee in the first place. There is something deeply wrong when community members openly state that insulting other people is ok because they are not productive. > You can't just fire them, so I understand the frustration here. You can and should just ignore them. It is not mandatory to engage with people you disagree with and find unproductive especially on the internet where filtering them out is not that difficult. Less extreme but also working is to just engage them less often. If you slow down the conversation, there is less space for them to annoy you.
  - neycoda 2y ago
    But he's not arguing that it's right. That's a proactive action, not a default reaction to not arguing it's wrong. Kent's comment is on the line, but it doesn't look abusive. Frankly I'm more curious about the assertions rather than the phrasing, which I think is only the offensive part. Did Michal make mistake after mistake? Did he assert that crashes are better than error handling? Did his comments or actions logically lead to that happening? That does matter in system robustness. It seems the meat of the statements Kent made were not explored, merely that he said them harshly. Holding back development because someone wouldn't apologize publicly seems pedantic. If Kent is being hyperbolic, ie inaccurate, that's the bigger concern.
mathfailure 2y ago
[flagged]
- PaulCarrack 2y ago
  We've seen this with Python's CoC and Tim Peters as well. This timeline sucks.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      One can be considered an asshole while not being an asshole by many people's standard though. Anyone could find an issue with your behavior. Ethics and morality are not so clear cut. Plus, if behavior is an issue, one needs to specify that behavior, labels (such as "asshole") are extremely inadequate.
      - o11c 2y ago
        There's also the blatant irony that calling someone an "asshole" would be against a sane interpretation of the CoC.
        johnisgood 2y ago
        Yup!
      - actualwitch 2y ago
        This right here is the reason code of conduct exists: so that everyone agrees on what kind of behavior is out of line before starting to work on the project.
        johnisgood 2y ago
jackhalford 2y ago
I really want to migrate my zfs pool to bcachefs so I can finally follow the latest version of fedora from day one, but this crap is making me doubt it’s a good move…
- curtis3389 2y ago
  Regardless of everything else, most people should not be using bcachefs yet. Kent has even stated that unless you're okay not being able to access your data for chunks of time while bugs are being fixed, you shouldn't be using it. The conventional wisdom would be to wait 10 years after a new filesystem is introduced for it to stabilize before switching, so we're looking at summer next year at the earliest.
  - Filligree 2y ago
    Apart from that, there are (or were, last I tried it six months ago) some performance bugs in the code. Nothing that completely breaks it, but I found at the time that the high variance on read requests for Samsung 970 series NVMe causes the filesystem to also dispatch reads of cached data to the HDDs, even when it’s fully cached. Which predictably increases latency a lot. Really I should make another stab at fixing that, but the whole driver is C, and I’m not good at writing flawless C. Combine that with the problem actually being hard… (“Always read from SSD” isn’t a valid solution here.)
    - koverstreet 2y ago
      "Always read from SSD" seems like what you'd want, no? I have something on the back burner to start benchmarking devices at format time, that would let us start making better decisions in these situations.
      - Filligree 2y ago
        Sorry to say, I have some old SSDs that are only 3-4 times faster than the HDDs. Especially when there’s a lot of HDDs in the pool, ignoring them could be leaving a lot of performance on the floor. Though it would be an improvement over what I saw last time I tried, sure.
linsomniac 2y ago
My reading of it is that they both were being jerks. In particular, the whole "I supported my argument with references, but it's YOUR job to locate those arguments" never sits well with me. Reminds me a bit of this time I had FINALLY gotten someone to volunteer to help out with maintenance, and his first action was met with someone being a real jerk. I called them out on it and they started attacking me. I never replied, but I did get an "appology" from them: [paraphrased] "I'm sooo sorry... That I sent that from my work address. Please don't get me fired, I need this job."
gdgghhhhh 2y ago
I suggest reading the whole mail thread before judging. The CoC decision was the last resort.
- koverstreet 2y ago
  No, they had the option of having a real conversation in private about what we could do to improve the overall situation. Instead what I got was "It'd be a real shame if you're no longer around", and other equally dismissive behavior, and considering this was a situation in which a maintainer was pushing for something that would likely have led to security vulnerabilities and was being dismissive of criticism I didn't feel that was something we could let slide. Priorities, people.
  - gdgghhhhh 2y ago
    No Kent, really.
    - koverstreet 2y ago
      I've gotten into arguments that were even more heated with maintainers who introduced data corruption bugs into code I wrote in the core block layer, without CCing me, which then hit users I support, and then had to track down, and then had them put up ridiculous fights over getting the bugs fixed. Context matters, and also, if we're going to have standards for professional conduct they do need to be about more than just language. We shouldn't be punching down, but we shouldn't be insulating maintainers from criticism when they're being incompetent, either.
  - chrisoverzero 2y ago
    > No, they had the option of having a real conversation in private about what we could do to improve the overall situation. Abusing others individually in public, but expecting a quiet word on the side about “the overall situation” when it comes to your own behavior. I hope you realize something from this.
    - 2y ago
noncoml 2y ago
Good code is not written in a democratic way. Seems like Hocko was wearing Kent down with his arguments on what was a very bad idea in the first place. I agree the last sentence by Kent was not needed, but I can totally understand his frustration. I think it’s a loss for the users at the end on the day.
- okl 2y ago
  > Good code is not written in a democratic way [citation needed] In case anyone's looking for that last sentence (quoting Kent here, not my words): > Get your head examined. And get the fuck out of here with this shit. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/citv2v6f33hoidq75xd2spaqxf7nl5wbmmzma4wgmrwpoqidhj@k453tmq7vdrk/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/citv2v6f33hoidq75xd2spaqxf7nl5w...
  - noncoml 2y ago
    > [citation needed] IMHO
    - deepnet 2y ago
      Code communities are very democratic, they produce good code and good coders. Democracy is good governance not a dictatorship of a majority. A benevolent dictatorship is said to be a most efficient form of government, until it ushers in a non-benevolent dictatorship. Democracy is not perfect but relatively sustainable in that there is a peaceful mechanism for change and a means of consensus. Small communities don’t need too many rules but in time as they grow it becomes necessary.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  Kent is only prevented to merge for a version and mostly because he refused to actually apologise and kind of dig his heels. Reading his comment on LWN, he seems really really tired. A mandatory break doesn’t look like the worst thing which would happen to him. I don’t think he is a bad person.
  - deleted 2y ago
marcodiego 2y ago
I've been an on and off contributor of FLOSS software for a long time. Sometimes I sent some unfinished patches and got responses like ' I don't think you know what you're doing' and 'turn on brain'. At the time I considered those developers were right and didn't complain. It made more careful before sending patches and commenting. But it also affected my willing to contribute with the project. I also consider that, although those devs were right, they could have expressed themselves more cordially. I don't think being that rude improves anything. I do support the CoC committee decision and hope more projects had one.
- lsafer 2y ago
  I guest this is were AI could be useful XD. write down "turn on brain" and let the AI transform it to "We love you bro, but this code needs improvements".
- tpoacher 2y ago
  I agree with your general point about the effects of such rudeness, but I also think the solution is to actually "just" write to these people (in broad cc) and say "Please consider that, although [you] devs were right, [you] could have expressed [your]selves more cordially. I don't think being that rude improves anything, [and] this behaviour has affected my willing to contribute with the project.". Even if your own email falls on deaf ears, the second or third will trigger reflection. And the 10th will trigger some sort of review by colleagues. After all, at the end of the day, it's a team of adults who are all in it for the same goal, and they should be trusted to be able to handle it like adults when concerns have been expressed in the appropriate manner. Whereas CoC-driven development risks leading to a chilling effect where you no longer constructively argue about stuff, let alone in a passionate manner (that, admittedly, risks going the wrong side of the fence on occasion), and just let shit pile up because it's not your business to be getting the snake out of the hole and messing with a CoC Panel for it. And this is even in the 'ideal' case where the CoC Panel has no 'political' ulterior motives. God forbid when this is not the case. Basically, careful what you wish for.
  - bonzini 2y ago
chx 2y ago
[flagged]
Deeg9rie9usi 2y ago
In this conflict, there can only be losers. :-(
taeric 2y ago
I tried reading the history here. I confess the emails signed "on behalf of the committee" hit with a bad taste. In particular, if the goal is to promote more discussion and openness between contributors, having a "committee" involved feels very counter productive. As does demanding an apology. By all means, empower folks to call others out as rude. Publicly call out what you see as transgressions. But don't do so with a shield of, "I'm speaking for the committee."
- xedrac 2y ago
  I think this CoC nonsense makes me far less likely to contribute to the kernel. CoC's should be nothing more than "Don't be a jerk, and keep it constructive". Kent's interaction in that one instance was jerk-ish for sure. But the last thing we need is some big brother committee bringing down the hammer of shame on key maintainers. Let them have their heated technical arguments. How about we try and not be so easily offended by everything?
  - cmxch 2y ago
    Which actually works quite well for places like OpenBSD. The lack of a star chamber CoC puts the focus on writing good code.
  - taeric 2y ago
    I'm torn. I think having a stated code of conduct is fine. I also think moderation is good. Works well here, as an example. But, it is done very directly here with no hiding behind process. I get that things can be harder in other context. But will never agree with personal messages on behalf of a committee, I don't think. And for the apologies, that is silly. Would be akin to someone getting a citation being responsible to say sorry. Ideally, you want people to feel the need to do that on their own. At young ages, it is understandable to try and teach the formalities of apologies. But, as a formal policy, it robs apologies of any real meaning.
    - arp242 2y ago
      I guess the thing that bothers me that this is mainly a personal conflict between two people. And now some "committee" is butting in a month and a half later – I don't know, I'm not sure that's helpful. Kent is obviously well-intentioned and acting in good faith. He is also rather difficult to the point where I wouldn't be surprised to see bcachefs removed from the kernel at some point. It seems to me that mediation and help to deal with his attitude would be far more constructive and appropriate, not punishment. I suppose that sums up why I don't care too much for the CoC stuff: it's too much focused on "punishment", and typically results in a committee deciding who is and isn't deserving of it.
sheepdestroyer 2y ago
Being technically wrong and unproductive during a technical argument should not warrant being insulted. But It would surely suffice to prevent a demand for a public apology from the exasperated party who was on the right side of the argument ; or at least not before the insulted party having issued an apology for being wrong and uncooperative in the first place. When CoC have the effect of punishing volunteer work for not being nice/polite/SFW during an argument, regardless of who was technically right, this is putting form over substance. This is a stance that seems balanced toward corporate friendliness. But I believe that the kernel benefits more from being a community/volunteer oriented project than pandering to corporate culture of niceness over anything else. Losing BcacheFS over this would be a shame.
- LtWorf 2y ago
  It's american culture. And it's corporate because linux is now corporate run. And all these things make sure that no volunteer will ever take part.
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    Let's be specific, this is Left Coastal elite culture. Not all of America is as delusional and neurotic as that.
vbezhenar 2y ago
Linux is officially dead. This nonsense should not happen. Now users will suffer from bugs, because of some CoC nonsense.
- DaSHacka 2y ago
  The writing was already on the wall as soon as the CoC was added. It's nothing but a vehicle for control and abuse.
fefe23 2y ago
Why didn't they block his access to the mailing list instead? It's not his code that people felt hurt by, was it?
- yarg 2y ago
  Yeah, it kinda was - https://lore.kernel.org/all/172816780614.3194359.10913571563159868953.pr-tracker-bot@kernel.org/T/#mcc96ee93acdd1135bedd2efb816f5d77c5c8c41d https://lore.kernel.org/all/172816780614.3194359.10913571563... He was refusing to contribute his code according to the rules (by which everyone is meant to abide), avoiding regression testing and creating bugs. And he certainly didn't help his case with tone deaf comments like this: > If you're so convinced you know best, I invite you to start writing your own filesystem. Go for it.
  - koverstreet 2y ago
    Linus was completely going off there. There are no instances anyone can point to where I've caused regressions in other subsystems, in the course of developing bcachefs. I have had people introduce regressions into my code without following proper channels, though.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      > Linus was completely going off there. It's his kernel.
    - yarg 2y ago
      It's a moot point. Changes should be in place in time for regression testing, if you cannot manage that wait for the next cycle. Those same rules apply to everyone, and you're being called out for not only repeatedly ignoring them, but also for refusing to listen to that criticism.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  Pull requests happen through the mailing list, fwiw.
alwayslikethis 2y ago
Not meaning to support him, but for Kent’s perspective: https://www.patreon.com/posts/trouble-in-116412665 https://www.patreon.com/posts/trouble-in-116412665 I don't think what Kent did was right, but I'm also not sure this kind of heavy-handed approach by the CoC team is good, either. The forced public apology sounds a bit like a kindergarten teacher forcing two kids to shake hands after a fight. On my part, I just hope that Linux will get a real competitor to ZFS.
- senectus1 2y ago
  I dont think so, It requires an acknowledgement of a back-down... a de-escalation. Without it your only two choices are to boot him out or let him stay and try to ignore him. One is overly heavy handed the other just formulates escalating toxicity.
- gomijacogeo 2y ago
  His well over 6,000 word perspective. And I think that's one of the reasons Kent got the pointy, if maladroit, end of the CoC's attention. Every time he wants to break/rearchitect an internal API, or every time he makes a submission that flagrantly goes against kernel convention, you have to navigate a dozen walls of text where Kent vents and re-re-relitigates every transgression he's endured, every minute detail of his thought process as to why he needs to break the rules because his case is special, his list of ailments and anxieties that all the pushback is causing him, etc, etc, etc. His language is frequently escalatory and he seems unable to contemplate alternatives until at the brink of someone's (frequently Linus') patience and threats of bans or having bcachefs yanked from the kernel. It's brinksmanship and he overstepped. In short, he is the "that guy" on the list.
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    Do you contribute to Nix or NixOS by any chance?
kristjank 2y ago
I am very much on the observer/user side of FLOSS, but the way Codes of Conduct have been applied since their widespread adoption have seen a lot of very productive developers ostracized for their emotionally unregulated methods of communications. This general regard for ceremony and civility above anything else leads to these NKVD-like committees policing code access where the quality of work delivered is considered only collaterally, if at all. I am worried that the trend these code of conduct implementations set in the past few years optimize for a future where development environments will be optimized for the prosperity of low-productivity, low-intelligence, high-vulnerability and highly-provocative individuals. This idea that the tone of communication may not be coupled in any way to the frustration of the correspondent is in my opinion extremely misanthropic and allows intense psychological abuse through condescension and/or playing dumb.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  Just to be clear, Overstreet wrote an email asking someone to “get their head checked” and “get the fuck out of here with this shit”. I don’t think it’s the CoC committee overreacting. I would reach to HR advising termination if a member of my team did this to someone in writing. This is straight up illegal in my country. If you write this to someone, you will lose if they sue. A lenient sanction and some probation seems fine for someone with a history of good contribution but doing nothing would be wrong. I’m not sure comparing that to the NKVD is wise.
  - sheepdestroyer 2y ago
    Believing that a corporate friendly HR-like body with termination power, is what a community project like linux needs is a part of the current problem. This mentality will encourage the take-over of FLOSS communities by power-grabbing psychopath types that already thrive in corporate environments. Not sure why would anyone want that.
    - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
      The CoC committee was long overdue. The decision here is both lenient - it’s only one release - pragmatic and necessary. We should aspire to more friendless not some weird tolerance for behaviour which would he unacceptable everywhere else.
bluecalm 2y ago
So "CoC committee" recommends refusing pull requests because their author was rude when arguing technical issue with someone who appears to be incompetent? Am I getting this right?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
randomfish1 2y ago
They really need to just kick him out of tree. Quit playing games with him and put bcachefs out of tree where it belongs.
randomfish1 2y ago
Tbh the longer this goes on the worse it makes the kernel and Kent look. Coc drama is petty but this is the latest in months worth of problems coming out of bcachefs. Were currently at the point of "get better" and the next action should be "get out". There is a place for bcachefs in the kernel, it's just out of tree.

62 points by pantalaimon 2y ago

Oh, well. I tried to side with Kent but there is no way. His reply sounds like someone thinking about themselves as super-powerful just to have their super-powers stripped. Schadenfreude

PaulCarrack 2y ago

What he said wasn't even nearly as bad as what I've seen Linus say in other threads over the years. Is / was Linus Torvalds ever subject to a "tribunal" like Kent just was? In the end, it's the users that end up suffering. The guy (Hocko) kept making mistake after mistake and Kent struggled to get him to do anything remotely net positive with regard to the issues in that original thread. I'm not arguing that what Kent did was right or wrong, but I would be curious to hear what other ways people work with remote developers who are awful, especially when they work for other companies. You can't just fire them, so I understand the frustration here.

NewJazz 2y ago
The CoC is new, so no Linus wasn't subject to it in the past.
jitl 2y ago
Yes, Linus took some time off to “learn empathy” https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/09/linus-torvalds-apologizes-for-years-of-being-a-jerk-takes-time-off-to-learn-empathy/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/09/linus-torvalds-apolo... And I would say on a whole his behavior after 2018 has been less rude although he is still quite frank when necessary. I think it’s a positive change. I think Linus’s message from 2018 is good perspective here: when someone behaves in a way that harms the mission of the kernel it’s better to try to change that behavior at the expensive of that person’s contributions for a limited time, rather than having the bad behavior negatively impact all other contributors forever. https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/16/167 https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/16/167
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  There is a huge difference between "frank" and "abusive." One does not need to be abusive to "tell it like it is" (the most common phrase I heard people utter in defense of Linus's abhorrent behavior toward developers.) Linus was a bully who let authoring the Linux kernel go to his head and inflate his ego.
uluyol 2y ago
Around the time the CoC was being established, Linus went to therapy. If I recall correctly, some people had spoke to him about his behaviors and he decided to do something about it. I think it was done in private so it's unclear how much of it was pressure vs his own decision. His tone has become much less aggressive since.
- LtWorf 2y ago
  He's been unpleasant also after he came back. Not as extreme maybe, but certainly not nice.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    He should get some tips from Theo. :D
  - tredre3 2y ago
    Honesty is often unpleasant, especially when someone tells us that our work isn't good enough. But it is a required thing from a leader. The important thing is that he's cut down on needless personal insults.
    - LtWorf 2y ago
      But Linus isn't honest. I'm sure he thinks he is, but he's not always "objective". So while he thinks he's being honest, what he's saying can be untrue anyway. And of course he's Linus and you're a nobody so nobody will ever listen to the other side of the completely subjective "facts"
      - marcusb 2y ago
        Being honest doesn’t have anything to do with being objectively correct, unless a person is presenting their subjective feelings as objective fact. Saying to someone “your work is not good enough for me” is a subjective statement; whether or not it is honest depends on whether or not it is reflective of the speaker’s beliefs about the quality of the work. A leader not speaking up when they receive subpar work is dishonest, and it is fundamentally unfair to the person doing the work.
unsnap_biceps 2y ago
Linus did take a break to work on his anger issues and he has been very noticeably improved these last 6 years. While I don't think it was due to a tribunal, but I think enough other developers told him in private to work on it. https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/17/linus_torvalds_linux_apology_break/ https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/17/linus_torvalds_linux_...
- Filligree 2y ago
  Came a bit too late for me; I spent some time fixing bugs in an ISDN driver in my teens, but Linus’ reputation prevented me from ever trying to upstream it.
  - LtWorf 2y ago
    From having dealt with him personally, you probably saved yourself a lot of trouble.
Twirrim 2y ago
The current CoC came out from a particularly bad incident with Linus, which he signed off on at the same time as he went into therapy and started working on himself. There is a remarkable difference in the before and after. > I'm not arguing that what Kent did was right or wrong, but I would be curious to hear what other ways people work with remote developers who are awful, especially when they work for other companies. You can't just fire them, so I understand the frustration here. They absolutely can "fire" them, by making a decision not to accept any contribution from them.
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> I'm not arguing that what Kent did was right or wrong You are actually arguing that it was right. > The guy (Hocko) kept making mistake after mistake and Kent struggled to get him to do anything remotely net positive That’s not really an excuse for abuse. This kind of comment is why we need a CoC committee in the first place. There is something deeply wrong when community members openly state that insulting other people is ok because they are not productive. > You can't just fire them, so I understand the frustration here. You can and should just ignore them. It is not mandatory to engage with people you disagree with and find unproductive especially on the internet where filtering them out is not that difficult. Less extreme but also working is to just engage them less often. If you slow down the conversation, there is less space for them to annoy you.
- neycoda 2y ago
  But he's not arguing that it's right. That's a proactive action, not a default reaction to not arguing it's wrong. Kent's comment is on the line, but it doesn't look abusive. Frankly I'm more curious about the assertions rather than the phrasing, which I think is only the offensive part. Did Michal make mistake after mistake? Did he assert that crashes are better than error handling? Did his comments or actions logically lead to that happening? That does matter in system robustness. It seems the meat of the statements Kent made were not explored, merely that he said them harshly. Holding back development because someone wouldn't apologize publicly seems pedantic. If Kent is being hyperbolic, ie inaccurate, that's the bigger concern.

mathfailure 2y ago

[flagged]

PaulCarrack 2y ago
We've seen this with Python's CoC and Tim Peters as well. This timeline sucks.
- kelnos 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    One can be considered an asshole while not being an asshole by many people's standard though. Anyone could find an issue with your behavior. Ethics and morality are not so clear cut. Plus, if behavior is an issue, one needs to specify that behavior, labels (such as "asshole") are extremely inadequate.
    - o11c 2y ago
      There's also the blatant irony that calling someone an "asshole" would be against a sane interpretation of the CoC.
      - johnisgood 2y ago
        Yup!
    - actualwitch 2y ago
      This right here is the reason code of conduct exists: so that everyone agrees on what kind of behavior is out of line before starting to work on the project.
      - johnisgood 2y ago

jackhalford 2y ago

I really want to migrate my zfs pool to bcachefs so I can finally follow the latest version of fedora from day one, but this crap is making me doubt it’s a good move…

curtis3389 2y ago
Regardless of everything else, most people should not be using bcachefs yet. Kent has even stated that unless you're okay not being able to access your data for chunks of time while bugs are being fixed, you shouldn't be using it. The conventional wisdom would be to wait 10 years after a new filesystem is introduced for it to stabilize before switching, so we're looking at summer next year at the earliest.
- Filligree 2y ago
  Apart from that, there are (or were, last I tried it six months ago) some performance bugs in the code. Nothing that completely breaks it, but I found at the time that the high variance on read requests for Samsung 970 series NVMe causes the filesystem to also dispatch reads of cached data to the HDDs, even when it’s fully cached. Which predictably increases latency a lot. Really I should make another stab at fixing that, but the whole driver is C, and I’m not good at writing flawless C. Combine that with the problem actually being hard… (“Always read from SSD” isn’t a valid solution here.)
  - koverstreet 2y ago
    "Always read from SSD" seems like what you'd want, no? I have something on the back burner to start benchmarking devices at format time, that would let us start making better decisions in these situations.
    - Filligree 2y ago
      Sorry to say, I have some old SSDs that are only 3-4 times faster than the HDDs. Especially when there’s a lot of HDDs in the pool, ignoring them could be leaving a lot of performance on the floor. Though it would be an improvement over what I saw last time I tried, sure.

linsomniac 2y ago

My reading of it is that they both were being jerks. In particular, the whole "I supported my argument with references, but it's YOUR job to locate those arguments" never sits well with me. Reminds me a bit of this time I had FINALLY gotten someone to volunteer to help out with maintenance, and his first action was met with someone being a real jerk. I called them out on it and they started attacking me. I never replied, but I did get an "appology" from them: [paraphrased] "I'm sooo sorry... That I sent that from my work address. Please don't get me fired, I need this job."

gdgghhhhh 2y ago

I suggest reading the whole mail thread before judging. The CoC decision was the last resort.

koverstreet 2y ago
No, they had the option of having a real conversation in private about what we could do to improve the overall situation. Instead what I got was "It'd be a real shame if you're no longer around", and other equally dismissive behavior, and considering this was a situation in which a maintainer was pushing for something that would likely have led to security vulnerabilities and was being dismissive of criticism I didn't feel that was something we could let slide. Priorities, people.
- gdgghhhhh 2y ago
  No Kent, really.
  - koverstreet 2y ago
    I've gotten into arguments that were even more heated with maintainers who introduced data corruption bugs into code I wrote in the core block layer, without CCing me, which then hit users I support, and then had to track down, and then had them put up ridiculous fights over getting the bugs fixed. Context matters, and also, if we're going to have standards for professional conduct they do need to be about more than just language. We shouldn't be punching down, but we shouldn't be insulating maintainers from criticism when they're being incompetent, either.
- chrisoverzero 2y ago
  > No, they had the option of having a real conversation in private about what we could do to improve the overall situation. Abusing others individually in public, but expecting a quiet word on the side about “the overall situation” when it comes to your own behavior. I hope you realize something from this.
  - 2y ago

noncoml 2y ago

Good code is not written in a democratic way. Seems like Hocko was wearing Kent down with his arguments on what was a very bad idea in the first place. I agree the last sentence by Kent was not needed, but I can totally understand his frustration. I think it’s a loss for the users at the end on the day.

okl 2y ago
> Good code is not written in a democratic way [citation needed] In case anyone's looking for that last sentence (quoting Kent here, not my words): > Get your head examined. And get the fuck out of here with this shit. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/citv2v6f33hoidq75xd2spaqxf7nl5wbmmzma4wgmrwpoqidhj@k453tmq7vdrk/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/citv2v6f33hoidq75xd2spaqxf7nl5w...
- noncoml 2y ago
  > [citation needed] IMHO
  - deepnet 2y ago
    Code communities are very democratic, they produce good code and good coders. Democracy is good governance not a dictatorship of a majority. A benevolent dictatorship is said to be a most efficient form of government, until it ushers in a non-benevolent dictatorship. Democracy is not perfect but relatively sustainable in that there is a peaceful mechanism for change and a means of consensus. Small communities don’t need too many rules but in time as they grow it becomes necessary.
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
Kent is only prevented to merge for a version and mostly because he refused to actually apologise and kind of dig his heels. Reading his comment on LWN, he seems really really tired. A mandatory break doesn’t look like the worst thing which would happen to him. I don’t think he is a bad person.
- deleted 2y ago

marcodiego 2y ago

I've been an on and off contributor of FLOSS software for a long time. Sometimes I sent some unfinished patches and got responses like ' I don't think you know what you're doing' and 'turn on brain'. At the time I considered those developers were right and didn't complain. It made more careful before sending patches and commenting. But it also affected my willing to contribute with the project. I also consider that, although those devs were right, they could have expressed themselves more cordially. I don't think being that rude improves anything. I do support the CoC committee decision and hope more projects had one.

lsafer 2y ago
I guest this is were AI could be useful XD. write down "turn on brain" and let the AI transform it to "We love you bro, but this code needs improvements".
tpoacher 2y ago
I agree with your general point about the effects of such rudeness, but I also think the solution is to actually "just" write to these people (in broad cc) and say "Please consider that, although [you] devs were right, [you] could have expressed [your]selves more cordially. I don't think being that rude improves anything, [and] this behaviour has affected my willing to contribute with the project.". Even if your own email falls on deaf ears, the second or third will trigger reflection. And the 10th will trigger some sort of review by colleagues. After all, at the end of the day, it's a team of adults who are all in it for the same goal, and they should be trusted to be able to handle it like adults when concerns have been expressed in the appropriate manner. Whereas CoC-driven development risks leading to a chilling effect where you no longer constructively argue about stuff, let alone in a passionate manner (that, admittedly, risks going the wrong side of the fence on occasion), and just let shit pile up because it's not your business to be getting the snake out of the hole and messing with a CoC Panel for it. And this is even in the 'ideal' case where the CoC Panel has no 'political' ulterior motives. God forbid when this is not the case. Basically, careful what you wish for.
- bonzini 2y ago

chx 2y ago

[flagged]

Deeg9rie9usi 2y ago

In this conflict, there can only be losers. :-(

taeric 2y ago

I tried reading the history here. I confess the emails signed "on behalf of the committee" hit with a bad taste. In particular, if the goal is to promote more discussion and openness between contributors, having a "committee" involved feels very counter productive. As does demanding an apology. By all means, empower folks to call others out as rude. Publicly call out what you see as transgressions. But don't do so with a shield of, "I'm speaking for the committee."

xedrac 2y ago
I think this CoC nonsense makes me far less likely to contribute to the kernel. CoC's should be nothing more than "Don't be a jerk, and keep it constructive". Kent's interaction in that one instance was jerk-ish for sure. But the last thing we need is some big brother committee bringing down the hammer of shame on key maintainers. Let them have their heated technical arguments. How about we try and not be so easily offended by everything?
- cmxch 2y ago
  Which actually works quite well for places like OpenBSD. The lack of a star chamber CoC puts the focus on writing good code.
- taeric 2y ago
  I'm torn. I think having a stated code of conduct is fine. I also think moderation is good. Works well here, as an example. But, it is done very directly here with no hiding behind process. I get that things can be harder in other context. But will never agree with personal messages on behalf of a committee, I don't think. And for the apologies, that is silly. Would be akin to someone getting a citation being responsible to say sorry. Ideally, you want people to feel the need to do that on their own. At young ages, it is understandable to try and teach the formalities of apologies. But, as a formal policy, it robs apologies of any real meaning.
  - arp242 2y ago
    I guess the thing that bothers me that this is mainly a personal conflict between two people. And now some "committee" is butting in a month and a half later – I don't know, I'm not sure that's helpful. Kent is obviously well-intentioned and acting in good faith. He is also rather difficult to the point where I wouldn't be surprised to see bcachefs removed from the kernel at some point. It seems to me that mediation and help to deal with his attitude would be far more constructive and appropriate, not punishment. I suppose that sums up why I don't care too much for the CoC stuff: it's too much focused on "punishment", and typically results in a committee deciding who is and isn't deserving of it.

sheepdestroyer 2y ago

Being technically wrong and unproductive during a technical argument should not warrant being insulted. But It would surely suffice to prevent a demand for a public apology from the exasperated party who was on the right side of the argument ; or at least not before the insulted party having issued an apology for being wrong and uncooperative in the first place. When CoC have the effect of punishing volunteer work for not being nice/polite/SFW during an argument, regardless of who was technically right, this is putting form over substance. This is a stance that seems balanced toward corporate friendliness. But I believe that the kernel benefits more from being a community/volunteer oriented project than pandering to corporate culture of niceness over anything else. Losing BcacheFS over this would be a shame.

LtWorf 2y ago
It's american culture. And it's corporate because linux is now corporate run. And all these things make sure that no volunteer will ever take part.
- anonfordays 2y ago
  Let's be specific, this is Left Coastal elite culture. Not all of America is as delusional and neurotic as that.

vbezhenar 2y ago

Linux is officially dead. This nonsense should not happen. Now users will suffer from bugs, because of some CoC nonsense.

DaSHacka 2y ago
The writing was already on the wall as soon as the CoC was added. It's nothing but a vehicle for control and abuse.

fefe23 2y ago

Why didn't they block his access to the mailing list instead? It's not his code that people felt hurt by, was it?

yarg 2y ago
Yeah, it kinda was - https://lore.kernel.org/all/172816780614.3194359.10913571563159868953.pr-tracker-bot@kernel.org/T/#mcc96ee93acdd1135bedd2efb816f5d77c5c8c41d https://lore.kernel.org/all/172816780614.3194359.10913571563... He was refusing to contribute his code according to the rules (by which everyone is meant to abide), avoiding regression testing and creating bugs. And he certainly didn't help his case with tone deaf comments like this: > If you're so convinced you know best, I invite you to start writing your own filesystem. Go for it.
- koverstreet 2y ago
  Linus was completely going off there. There are no instances anyone can point to where I've caused regressions in other subsystems, in the course of developing bcachefs. I have had people introduce regressions into my code without following proper channels, though.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    > Linus was completely going off there. It's his kernel.
  - yarg 2y ago
    It's a moot point. Changes should be in place in time for regression testing, if you cannot manage that wait for the next cycle. Those same rules apply to everyone, and you're being called out for not only repeatedly ignoring them, but also for refusing to listen to that criticism.
NewJazz 2y ago
Pull requests happen through the mailing list, fwiw.

alwayslikethis 2y ago

Not meaning to support him, but for Kent’s perspective: https://www.patreon.com/posts/trouble-in-116412665 https://www.patreon.com/posts/trouble-in-116412665 I don't think what Kent did was right, but I'm also not sure this kind of heavy-handed approach by the CoC team is good, either. The forced public apology sounds a bit like a kindergarten teacher forcing two kids to shake hands after a fight. On my part, I just hope that Linux will get a real competitor to ZFS.

senectus1 2y ago
I dont think so, It requires an acknowledgement of a back-down... a de-escalation. Without it your only two choices are to boot him out or let him stay and try to ignore him. One is overly heavy handed the other just formulates escalating toxicity.
gomijacogeo 2y ago
His well over 6,000 word perspective. And I think that's one of the reasons Kent got the pointy, if maladroit, end of the CoC's attention. Every time he wants to break/rearchitect an internal API, or every time he makes a submission that flagrantly goes against kernel convention, you have to navigate a dozen walls of text where Kent vents and re-re-relitigates every transgression he's endured, every minute detail of his thought process as to why he needs to break the rules because his case is special, his list of ailments and anxieties that all the pushback is causing him, etc, etc, etc. His language is frequently escalatory and he seems unable to contemplate alternatives until at the brink of someone's (frequently Linus') patience and threats of bans or having bcachefs yanked from the kernel. It's brinksmanship and he overstepped. In short, he is the "that guy" on the list.
- anonfordays 2y ago
  Do you contribute to Nix or NixOS by any chance?

kristjank 2y ago

I am very much on the observer/user side of FLOSS, but the way Codes of Conduct have been applied since their widespread adoption have seen a lot of very productive developers ostracized for their emotionally unregulated methods of communications. This general regard for ceremony and civility above anything else leads to these NKVD-like committees policing code access where the quality of work delivered is considered only collaterally, if at all. I am worried that the trend these code of conduct implementations set in the past few years optimize for a future where development environments will be optimized for the prosperity of low-productivity, low-intelligence, high-vulnerability and highly-provocative individuals. This idea that the tone of communication may not be coupled in any way to the frustration of the correspondent is in my opinion extremely misanthropic and allows intense psychological abuse through condescension and/or playing dumb.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
Just to be clear, Overstreet wrote an email asking someone to “get their head checked” and “get the fuck out of here with this shit”. I don’t think it’s the CoC committee overreacting. I would reach to HR advising termination if a member of my team did this to someone in writing. This is straight up illegal in my country. If you write this to someone, you will lose if they sue. A lenient sanction and some probation seems fine for someone with a history of good contribution but doing nothing would be wrong. I’m not sure comparing that to the NKVD is wise.
- sheepdestroyer 2y ago
  Believing that a corporate friendly HR-like body with termination power, is what a community project like linux needs is a part of the current problem. This mentality will encourage the take-over of FLOSS communities by power-grabbing psychopath types that already thrive in corporate environments. Not sure why would anyone want that.
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    The CoC committee was long overdue. The decision here is both lenient - it’s only one release - pragmatic and necessary. We should aspire to more friendless not some weird tolerance for behaviour which would he unacceptable everywhere else.

bluecalm 2y ago

So "CoC committee" recommends refusing pull requests because their author was rude when arguing technical issue with someone who appears to be incompetent? Am I getting this right?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

randomfish1 2y ago

They really need to just kick him out of tree. Quit playing games with him and put bcachefs out of tree where it belongs.

randomfish1 2y ago

Tbh the longer this goes on the worse it makes the kernel and Kent look. Coc drama is petty but this is the latest in months worth of problems coming out of bcachefs. Were currently at the point of "get better" and the next action should be "get out". There is a place for bcachefs in the kernel, it's just out of tree.