Another Change Proposed For Linux's Code of Conduct

[johanb]

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.

It is possible to harass someone who is not on the mailing list on the mailing list.

[L_A_G]

...

I think you may have completely misunderstood my point there. The point that I was trying to make was that while the claim of people trying to get people kicked off projects for simply disagreeing with them outside of the project may sound like conspiracy theorist nonsense, there is actually precedent for just that. Not just the Durapal example, but even by the person who wrote the basis for this particular CoC, meaning that the room for misinterpretation may not be completely accidental and there's all the more reason to do something about it.

In other words there's legitimate reasons to ensure that a CoC, particularly one based on the contributor covenant, doesn't become a tool for personal attacks made as part of disputes taking place well outside of the project.

[stargazer]

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...)

Actually there is a substantial difference. The original COC creator attacked a developer for something they did on their own time that had nothing to do with anything related to that project. The people using the event to criticize the COC are effectively pointing out how this 'patch' has introduced a security flaw in another project allowing malicious attacks against the project and disruption of developer resources. In that vein, it's no different that discussing any other severe regression a proposed patch introduces based on experience from other situations it's been introduced.

[Guest]

IMHO, "enriching experience to any sentient being in the Universe" sounds just as useless and vague as the original Code of Conflict that Linux had.

[ThoreauHD]

And down the rabbit hole they go... Kernel 5.0 is gonna suck.

[SpyroRyder]

I wonder what would happen if Hans Reiser posted patches.

This is a good example of why shit that happens outside the project can, and in many cases should, have baring on their inclusion within a project. Reiser killed people, should we just ignore that because he has proven to write some pretty good code. He's an extreme case yes but it still backs up why you do need to look at a persons conduct outside a project.

[Henk717]

I hope this change makes it in, still not a fan of it applying outside of the project but at least with opinions out of the way it prevents slander without evidence keeping things reasonably safe.

[onicsis]

Good job. Certainly this code of conduct - will improve code quality a lot, a will be decesive to find bugs and security holes. Or just another weapon in neomarxists arsenal.

[moilami]

This is a good example of why shit that happens outside the project can, and in many cases should, have baring on their inclusion within a project. Reiser killed people, should we just ignore that because he has proven to write some pretty good code. He's an extreme case yes but it still backs up why you do need to look at a persons conduct outside a project.

Quality of code matters. Not what you said/did/thought somewhere else.

[Cape]

This is a good example of why shit that happens outside the project can, and in many cases should, have baring on their inclusion within a project. Reiser killed people, should we just ignore that because he has proven to write some pretty good code. He's an extreme case yes but it still backs up why you do need to look at a persons conduct outside a project.

Sorry, what?
Why is that a good example? ReiserFS was a great piece of code. Actually "the first journaling file system to be included in the standard kernel".

At best, this is an example of why we should NOT care about a contributor's personal life. What's the nexus between personal conduct and C code? Would you prefer shitty code with NSA backdoors pushed by SJWs in place of good code pushed by MoFos? I'd go with mofos any time!