Linux Code of Conduct Likely To See Changes Ahead Of 4.19 Kernel Release

[Guest]

And what part of that do you disagree with?

Wikipedia or more correctly: jewishpedia, isn't trustworthy source when comes to certain definitions or articles. It has been taken over by politically 'correct' anti-human racists and deviants. The upcoming change in Linux' CoC is a very good thing. Ps. SJW shouldn't be allowed to have any influence on normal people. They should be isolated from community.

[ALRBP]

Quick question, can I be a moron, submitting patches that are literal garbage, be called out on it, and then claim harassment? I am glad that they've moved in a better direction, but I still prefer the (good code) > (your feelings) approach.

The point is that you can reject code by saying something like: "Your code does not complies with our standards of quality" and not "You code like a n***** g** s****" (without the *).
When a very selective university rejects candidates, they say something like "We are sorry to inform you that you have not been accepted to join us next year" and not "You are a m******* t*******, go die". Being polite does not prevents you from being selective.

[gamerk2]

Love the comments. Agree or not, there's a behavior problem. When you have people in leadership positions telling contributors to kill themselves to make the gene pool better, that's kind of a "code smell." Telling someone to commit a sex act on someone of the same sex in response to a perceived professional inadequecy in a code review (actual verbiage is banned by content policy, use your imagination) is sophomoric at best, and not something most people want to deal with on a routine basis.

There seems to be this tacit assumption that a "thick skin" makes for a strong engineer and helps "weed out" the weak. The reality is that talented engineers don't have to take abuse, we have options. Our contributions are welcome and taken elsewhere. This is the type of behavior has made countless open source projects, mailing lists etc a cesspool. I can only imagine how much better linux would be if the people in charge hadn't spent years running off countless contributors.

The policy itself isn't perfect, but it's needed. You're engineers, work on it until it works and stop whining about SJWs, libtards, socialists (irony much?) and how whatever Boogeyman you imagine is coming to steal whatever it is you imagine you have to lose.

Case in point: I don't contribute much to Linus anymore; I mainly work BSDs and other smaller projects now.

[timrichardson]

It wasn't social justice warriors who committed the CoC. It was the project leader. The CoC has a proven track record in an important kernel tree. I think Linus is more likely to see how it goes rather than make quick substantial changes. He feels there is a need for big changes.
As for the list of specific anti-discrimination targets, every anti-discrimation law lists specific targets. Do our road laws simply say 'drive nice'? If Linus wanted a minimal change CoC he wouldn't have changed the CoC.

[Lanz]

I am tired of the constant aggressions from left-wing behaviour police. They simply cannot stand the idea of people sorting out their own problems. At least enforced appeal-to-authority has been kicked down the road for now with the removal of the board's adjudicating powers. Appealing to some board instead of handling your own conflicts is just more evidence of the infantilization of our culture (especially towards "oppressed groups" - they're treated like children who cannot do any wrong by the modern left).

[Grinch]

When you have people in leadership positions telling contributors to kill themselves to make the gene pool better

We are talking about one guy here, do not present this as something rampant among Linux leadership. Yes, he is the leader of the project, and I really dislike his habit of exaggerated 'flaming'. You can be passionate about good code and be pissed when developers in high positions push really bad code, WITHOUT sounding like a 15 year old throwing a tantrum.

That said, it's also not the end of the world, nor is it something done on a 'routine basis' as you claimed. It's reserved for particularly bad code being pushed by seasoned developers, I personally find it counterproductive to publically lambast someone, but I'm also not the person who has to fight a tidal wave of code submitted for inclusion every release cycle and who needs to be able to trust that those high in the developer chain actually vet the code before pushing it upstream.

The policy itself isn't perfect, but it's needed.

That's very debatable. The Linux project has prospered incredibly well without this policy, I also don't see how it is needed to reign in Linus, since the pre-existing code of conflict already covered this, which did not stop him. In other words, HE has to be willing to stop personal attacks, it's not a question of a specific CoC version.

You're engineers, work on it until it works and stop whining about SJWs, libtards, socialists (irony much?)

Well, an easy way to prevent this would be to remove all the SJW politics from the CoC, it's simply not needed and also causes problems by omission (as in not having politics listed as something protected from harassment). The proposed language of "a harassment-free experience for everyone." is a great step in that direction.

[Grinch]

The CoC has a proven track record in an important kernel tree.

What does this actually mean ? Proven how ?

If Linus wanted a minimal change CoC he wouldn't have changed the CoC.

He wanted to go on vacation and be away from all the debacle (that he realized would be the result of the article being published), which is why he did everything he could to get out of the kernel summit, I don't think there was much thought or discussion put into the selection of this particular CoC, it's likely that a lot of discussion regarding it has happened since then.

[Weasel]

Love the comments. Agree or not, there's a behavior problem. When you have people in leadership positions telling contributors to kill themselves to make the gene pool better, that's kind of a "code smell." Telling someone to commit a sex act on someone of the same sex in response to a perceived professional inadequecy in a code review (actual verbiage is banned by content policy, use your imagination) is sophomoric at best, and not something most people want to deal with on a routine basis.

You must be one of those SJWs who takes the meaning of motherfucker literally. Fun to be around.

[mlau]

With that patch, "a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation." would change to "a harassment-free experience for everyone."

They must change that really, that makes no sense at all

It's also quite strange that the SJW's seem to be the only group obsessed with gender/race/personal-attribute-of-the-day . No rational person on the internet cares about these things, they get that for all they know, the person on the other side could be a dog.

[BeardedGNUFreak]

The entire effort to call out the "protected classes" under this CoC will very likely reveal some "corner case" class that was omitted. Then some public outcry will occur, possibly followed by one or more media events. In parallel a seemingly endless stream of emails on the subject will occur that will make the best "flame wars" fo 1990s USENET look like school spats.

Although I agree that you have the unending claims of oppressed/special class in the Victimization Olympics that is mind boggling that Linus has now put the project in the situation of having to deal with, from my experience following the FreeBSD and other open source projects that have suffered similar attacks by SJWs that is merely a massive nuisance and waste of time compared to the much graver danger.

These call outs of identity groups in these toxic SJW CoCs is meant to establish the Progressive Stack in the project.

The Progressive Stack places individuals into one or more groups that are ranked by how 'oppressed' they are. This is fundamental way that SJWs use CoCs as ideological weapons.

At one end of the Progressive Stack you have White Conservative Males - the oppressors.
At the other end of the Progressive Stack you have Black Trans Disabled Women - the oppressed.

CoC violations are only enforced on the 'oppressor' classes while oppressed group members are given free rein to engage in toxic and abusive behavior. 'Rules for Thee. Not for Me.'

This is why the vile Coraline Ada Ehmke is working on creating a SJW Star Chamber organization for open source projects. In other projects these back channel SJW Star Chambers act as little more than rubber stamps for SJW attacks on project members with wrong think. And toxic behavior by SJWs when reported is either sent to /dev/null or openly mocked.

The end game for these toxic SJWs like Coraline Ada Ehmke is getting paid to sit home all day combing open source projects with the power to kick any and all members they find guilty of wrong think. They don't care about the project. They don't care about the damage to the project. The project is nothing more than a host to be sucked dry for as long as possible. When it dies they will move on to something else - it doesn't matter gaming, movies, board gaming, open source - they are all host organizations with masses of Virtue Signaling White Knights who desperately want everyone to know how 'welcoming' and 'progressive' they are because it is 'current year' after all who gleefully hand over the keys to the project.

The only thing funny about these sickening attacks is these pathetic White Knights think they are immune from these attacks and that if they Virtue Signal the loudest that they are safe. Oh, how they howl in shock when the SJW mobs come for them...