DRM/FreeDesktop Code of Conduct Submitted To Linux 4.12

[danvet]

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=bdc713bf5674bc6a881bd05c85e2a0f811b409b3

It was merged, no questions asked.

[broodinglurker]

Regardless of my opinion on the matter, the discussion of this PR is moot. The PR itself does not concern with the contents of the CoC, it merely states the existence of DRI's CoC that is hosted on freedesktop.org site, however recent.

In this discussion, robclark has correctly pointed out that the goal of the commit is to make this more transparent to newcomers. \

However, robclark has as used inflammatory, divisive language in a public manner. This action is terribly unprofessional. As evident, a part of Linux community has strong opinions and reservations about the existence of a CoC. His behavior as an important contributor in no way contributes positively to this discussion or promotes a healthy, rational discussion of this matter.

[starshipeleven]

As for this change, though, I don't see why a code of conduct belongs inside the repository. If you want to put this code of conduct on the mailinglist, send it to people who seem to be violating it, otherwise what's the point of having a file somewhere on the filesystem?

The fact is, this is a sinister effort by sinister people. These people don't really care about any of the people supposedly "protected" by this CoC; they just want to tell you how to speak, because they are insecure and guilty. They're insecure and guilty largely because they are the exact people these codes of conduct aim to police. They are the exact people who have malice of intent when they speak to you. They want to present themselves as the heroes of this conflict because they know that they are the villains.

Any amount of capitulation to this nonsense will be followed up by more demands.

And the worst part is, it will probably hurt the inclusion of minorities in these communities, by making it downright dangerous to even speak to them.

You cannot be calling yourself "a real man" (woman/wombat/whatever) if you can't bear a simple code of conduct like that.

And the code of conduct needs to be stated somehwere that provides proof of it being accepted by Torvalds, or it loses all its significance.

[starshipeleven]

I find it ironic that you violated the Code of Conduct in your email defending your support of it. Well done.

The CoC does not apply to interactions with people outside their project, so there is no violation even if he called him names (thing he didn't do, btw).

And quite frankly, he is right, this IS a peanut gallery where people post bullshit more often than not.

[starshipeleven]

However, robclark has as used inflammatory, divisive language in a public manner. This action is terribly unprofessional. As evident, a part of Linux community has strong opinions and reservations about the existence of a CoC. His behavior as an important contributor in no way contributes positively to this discussion or promotes a healthy, rational discussion of this matter.

robclark acted well for the place he is in. These forums are full of trolls, if you don't show you can troll them better you aren't taken seriously.

[robclark]

You didn't author the patch though, did you. You're a fine chap and you contribute hugely, but I doubt you can read minds.
You might think these policies are immune to abuse, but that doesn't make it true.

Correct, I didn't author it. But I think it is common sense, and I support it. I think it is better to set expectations about how we conduct ourselves clearly.

I don't blame you for supporting it, I might have a few years ago; but, respectfully, I suggest you have a little bit more scepticism for this approach to community management.

Heartless as I may sound, I posit that a software project does not survive on compassion, it survives on productivity and tangible support.

This doesn't change anything about how patches are merged. There is no need to be un-civil when discussion technical issues. Many times patchsets go through multiple iterations, as others point out cases that the original author might not have anticipated, etc.. all without name calling or other drama.

I cannot fathom this theory that some people have that name calling and being a jerk makes for better patches. It's simply not true.

(And for the record, the code of conduct patch went though the exact same process as all other code and documentation changes. So it's not like this was "snuck in")

Because I respect you, I doubt you would give up on developing Freedreno mid-way because somebody called you a name in a mailing list and said you should give up. Linus has been called many things, and he's still there. I'd reckon that people who are willing to do productive work don't just give up because somebody said an insensitive thing in an email about them.

If someone was a complete jack*$$ in response to my first patch, I might well have gone and found some other part of the stack to contribute to. "Thick skin" or not, it's still nice to work in a civil environment.

Conversely, if the wager is threats against your livelihood and allegations to your employer, I can think of many respectable people who would not even bother to start. The definitions of acceptable ways to speak to people will change over time on the whims of the few. Most people will think that each of the changes seems perfectly reasonable until at some point they get unfairly tarred and have nobody to go to. Apparently there's no accomodation for the autistic, or the mentally infirm here; they get the bullet too, and all in the name of compassion.

The paranoia is strong here..

Seriously, it would be a worse thing if the code of conduct was an informal unwritten agreement. If we did have to give warnings or eventually ban someone who was being a problem, it is better to have it in writing, explicitly and in public. Otherwise the process becomes arbitrary.

[DanL]

So you essentially just wasted your vote? Well good for you...

So you advocate against liking something based on "lesser of two evils" thinking, using the U.S. presidential election as an example, and then you try and put someone down for voting for a third party. That's some interesting logic there...

[JPFSanders]

AFAIK, this is not the military service. Respect is of uttermost importance, always.

Do not ever get in contact with people... ever.

Go hide under your bed son.

[JPFSanders]

I'm sorry to be so blunt but Linus Torvalds is an unrepentant prick. I was going to try and get into kernel development but when I saw this abusive monster spitting his vile venom at people just trying to help, for free, I simply couldn't do it. I would never allow someone to be so disrespectful and ungrateful. Really, I'm sure if he'd just retire there would be many more kernel developers.

This here is a clear example of bullshit.

Contributing to the kernel is not mandatory, it is a voluntary thing you do because you want to.

People's help for free does not equate to good quality code nor the right solution for a problem.

You have never participated on a large-scale project.

Sometimes there is no reason for being told "to fuck off" other than the person in charge does not like or trust you, and that is perfectly OK.

Be a grown up already and deal with it.

[willmore]

The CoC does not apply to interactions with people outside their project, so there is no violation even if he called him names (thing he didn't do, btw).

And quite frankly, he is right, this IS a peanut gallery where people post bullshit more often than not.

I see you didn't read the CoC. Let me aquaint you with a few parts of it that are applicable here:

Our Standards
Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Scope
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.

Like it or not, using the term 'peanut gallery' is insulting and pejorative. Not happy with that? Then fix the CoC. This is just an example of of how vague and poorly thought out and worded guidelines pose a threat to what might otherwise be considered acceptable behavior.