Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Linux Kernel Code of Conduct Committee Begins Offering Regular Reports

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

  • The Linux Kernel Code of Conduct Committee Begins Offering Regular Reports

    Phoronix: The Linux Kernel Code of Conduct Committee Begins Offering Regular Reports

    Back in late 2018 when Linus Torvalds went on a sabbatical from kernel development to focus on his inter-personal skills, the kernel added a Code of Conduct. To date there hasn't been much transparency into the Code of Conduct committee that acts upon violations, but that is changing in 2020...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...nduct-Rep-2020

  • #2
    Is it possible to see the "questionable" messages? (the ones indicated as having "insulting behavior")
    If not then I fear there is something shady going on...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
      Is it possible to see the "questionable" messages? (the ones indicated as having "insulting behavior")
      If not then I fear there is something shady going on...
      Private conversations should be protected and therefore they cannot just be published. There will always be a need for further context which would mean entire chains of messages ought to be made public. I am not sure how private the details of involved persons are, but releasing them could be harmful to both parties.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
        Is it possible to see the "questionable" messages? (the ones indicated as having "insulting behavior")
        If not then I fear there is something shady going on...
        I trust that the people involved are doing their jobs properly.

        and given that there have been 4 instances in such a long time, it means everyone is behaving!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by curfew View Post
          Private conversations should be protected and therefore they cannot just be published. There will always be a need for further context which would mean entire chains of messages ought to be made public. I am not sure how private the details of involved persons are, but releasing them could be harmful to both parties.
          The conversations are not private, they're all 100% public on the LKML. All relevant context is also public already.

          If it were private, releasing the details could not be reasonably said to be "harmful", because "harm" is a physical concept. It implies physical violence. You might disagree, but my dictionary is most likely correct, which makes you wrong.

          Originally posted by boxie View Post
          I trust that the people involved are doing their jobs properly.
          You might trust, but how can you verify that trust? Is it wrong to be able to verify trust?

          In any case, I do _not_ trust they're doing their jobs properly, because I doubt anyone could write a definition of "enforcing a CoC" that I'd consider "proper".

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by vhaarr View Post

            The conversations are not private, they're all 100% public on the LKML. All relevant context is also public already.

            If it were private, releasing the details could not be reasonably said to be "harmful", because "harm" is a physical concept. It implies physical violence. You might disagree, but my dictionary is most likely correct, which makes you wrong.
            Hi there low post count forum user.

            welcome to the fray.

            Just did a lookup: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harm "physical or mental damage" - kinda trust that lot to get their word definitions correct - it's kinda their thing
            Please readjust your definition and arguments. Mental health is a thing that you need to pay attention to.

            Originally posted by vhaarr View Post
            You might trust, but how can you verify that trust? Is it wrong to be able to verify trust?

            In any case, I do _not_ trust they're doing their jobs properly, because I doubt anyone could write a definition of "enforcing a CoC" that I'd consider "proper".
            You go right ahead and do your thing mate - More than happy for you to check up on them to make sure that the things they are doing are to your satisfaction.

            Be aware though, that they are encouraging people to behave nicely so everyone can go home happy and Happy People (tm) produce better code.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by boxie View Post
              Hi there low post count forum user.

              welcome to the fray.

              Just did a lookup: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harm "physical or mental damage" - kinda trust that lot to get their word definitions correct - it's kinda their thing
              Please readjust your definition and arguments. Mental health is a thing that you need to pay attention to.



              You go right ahead and do your thing mate - More than happy for you to check up on them to make sure that the things they are doing are to your satisfaction.

              Be aware though, that they are encouraging people to behave nicely so everyone can go home happy and Happy People (tm) produce better code.
              No, they're not. It's "follow our ideology or gulag."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by vhaarr View Post
                The conversations are not private, they're all 100% public on the LKML. All relevant context is also public already.
                Linux kernel CoC does not just cover the LKML it also the [email protected] mailing list that is private and a few other private mailing lists. So in some cases not all the relevant context will be public.

                Now even if all the information and context are public on the mailing list there is no reason to post that stuff again if the problem has been already settled between all parties.

                Think about it if it on the public mailing list you should be able to search it and work out who it was right if you were really interested. What advantage is there to re publishing the already settled issue. Please note the response recently was not forbid from mailing list. The result has been Education and coaching what is basically politely tell the person what they have done wrong and how they could be better in future.

                I would have a different matter if there was CoC enforcement stronger than just education and coaching. Remember education and coaching can be a simple case of miss understanding what they wrote.

                Like if they forbid someone from working on the kernel they better have list of issues to present. None of the people so far who have been questioned because of the CoC has raised a public complaint about the issue. You will expect if CoC is being enforced in bad ways sooner or latter someone with enforcement against them to raise public complaint then we can talk about it in more detail.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by vhaarr View Post

                  The conversations are not private, they're all 100% public on the LKML. All relevant context is also public already.

                  If it were private, releasing the details could not be reasonably said to be "harmful", because "harm" is a physical concept. It implies physical violence. You might disagree, but my dictionary is most likely correct, which makes you wrong.



                  You might trust, but how can you verify that trust? Is it wrong to be able to verify trust?

                  In any case, I do _not_ trust they're doing their jobs properly, because I doubt anyone could write a definition of "enforcing a CoC" that I'd consider "proper".
                  Are you serious? You definitely seem like one of those people that go around being contrarian because they think contrarian = smart. Turns out, it doesn't. First of all, I don't know what "dictionary" you're using, but there are objectively TWO English dictionaries universally considered to be THE authority on words in the English Language. Those are obviously Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary. Merriam-Webster's definition LITERALLY SAYS it can be physical OR mental injury, so you're 0 for 1. The OED says "damage or injury," without any exclusivity attached to it being physical. Whoops, you're 0 for 2. You're wrong, objectively. Even if you can find some other dictionary that happens to back you up, that's irrelevant, as the actual universally-regarded authorities on the subject both prove you wrong. Even if they didn't, which they do, every fluent English speaker on EARTH knows that "harm" does not whatsoever require physical injury or violence. Jesus Christ. You're wrong.

                  you're wrong
                  you're also wrong.
                  Definition of harm_1 noun in Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This is so stupid and unnecessary.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X