Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Change Proposed For Linux's Code of Conduct

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another Change Proposed For Linux's Code of Conduct

    Phoronix: Another Change Proposed For Linux's Code of Conduct

    With the Linux 4.19-rc8 kernel release overnight, one change not to be found in this latest Linux 4.19 release candidate are any alterations to the new Code of Conduct. The latest proposal forbids discussing off-topic matters while protecting any sentient being in the universe...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...l-Post-RC8-CoC

  • #2
    An interesting development... I agree that we should not discriminate against our friends the robots, but defining ``sentience'' is a rabbit hole on its own

    Edit: I might suggest ``entity capable of contributing meaningful changes'' instead. Incidentally, the ability to contribute meaningful code to the Linux kernel sounds like an interesting definition of ``sentience'' to me (just kidding -- but there might be something to dig here for philosophers).
    Last edited by [email protected]; 10-15-2018, 07:17 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sounds like they're definitely making some meaningful improvements to the thing. However they probably should have done those before the thing was ushered in trough the back door and accepted without any real public comments period. That in the eyes of many, including myself, doesn't exactly play all that well.

      My main gripe with it is still the wording of how maintainers can "define and clarify" the scope being open for a misinterpretation that allows the scope to be extended beyond the scope of the project and there not being anything in the CoC that explicitly bans maintainers from extending the scope beyond the project. The fix to this could be as simple as a wording change to "refine and clarify" where only a single letter is changed.

      To some this may sound a bit paranoid, which is a fair criticism, but we already have examples of CoCs being used to push people out for their activities well outside of projects. There's the infamous case of the senior Durpal dev who was cyberstalked on very private forums very much not related to the project by another developer and then kicked out of the project because of posts he made, in character, on these forums. Other than that there's also the case of when Coraline Ada, the person behind the Contributor Covenant, of which the Linux CoC is derived from, trying to get an Opal dev fired for his personal views expressed well outside of the project. To my knowledge that never went anywhere, but it still demonstrates what kind of person wrote what the Linux CoC is based on.

      Comment


      • #4
        with this the base for all the complains is fixed right?

        Comment


        • #5
          Sounds good, but "sentient being" is not really necessary. Just say to not discriminate against anyone who can write and send the patches, that's less ambiguous for some trolls. Of course such entities still need to be on topic and follow guidelines so it's not like suddenly random spam is allowed.

          If a machine can write patches itself that prove useful (and on topic) there's no reason to discriminate against it even if it's not sentient.

          Comment


          • #6
            this seems to be on fast track to become the best CoC ever made.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Weasel View Post
              Just say to not discriminate against anyone who can write and send the patches, that's less ambiguous for some trolls.
              That's even worse, in that case I could for example harass someone not coding but still involved in the Linux community such as event manager, community manager or some manager or chairman at the Linux foundation for example.
              That's a much more likely scenario than that a sentient AI will code and submit patches to the kernel.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by johanb View Post
                That's even worse, in that case I could for example harass someone not coding but still involved in the Linux community such as event manager, community manager or some manager or chairman at the Linux foundation for example.
                That's a much more likely scenario than that a sentient AI will code and submit patches to the kernel.
                I don't follow. The rules should strictly apply to the mailing list only. Whatever you do in your life outside shouldn't matter.

                i.e. if they sent a patch (not necessarily about coding), don't harass them for what they are. Human, robot, or whatnot. Just the patch itself based on what the patch is.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
                  he person behind the Contributor Covenant, of which the Linux CoC is derived from, trying to get an Opal dev fired for his personal views expressed well outside of the project. To my knowledge that never went anywhere, but it still demonstrates what kind of person wrote what the Linux CoC is based on.
                  True as that could be, it seems that I always have to point out that people saying this do not seem to apply the same principles to themselves:

                  If judging a contribution from someone else based on that person's behaviour outside of the project is bad; how should what the person who wrote the CoC did outside of the project matter in any kind?

                  To put it more clearly:
                  1. Person X criticized someone in project P1 for something that happened outside.
                  2. Person X is blamed for this
                  3. Person X (indirectly) contributes to project P2
                  4. Criticism from 2. is used inside P2

                  How come? The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one (and it's becoming quite complex to explain...)

                  Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                  Sounds good, but "sentient being" is not really necessary. Just say to not discriminate against anyone who can write and send the patches, that's less ambiguous for some trolls. Of course such entities still need to be on topic and follow guidelines so it's not like suddenly random spam is allowed.

                  If a machine can write patches itself that prove useful (and on topic) there's no reason to discriminate against it even if it's not sentient.
                  My thoughts exactly. Maybe "any entity" instead of "anyone"? (Although that's more or less the same, the latter has more of an implicit meaning).
                  Last edited by [email protected]; 10-15-2018, 08:22 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I wonder what would happen if Hans Reiser posted patches.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X