Linux CoC Announces Decision Following Recent Bcachefs Drama
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by User29 View Post
Bcachefs makes a change/implements a kernel feature and it runs into a problem. Kernel maintainers get all uppity because other stuff works fine so it must be bcachefs, but then you find out that no, it's actually a problem for other ones but nothing has used it enough to really notice it.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by User29 View PostLast edited by browseria; 25 November 2024, 04:03 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by AmericanLocomotive View PostIf you participate in your local community gardening club, and you say "Get your head examined and get the fuck out of here with this shit" to a fellow club member when they want to plant something you don't like - you will be removed from the club or reprimanded.LOOOL I registered for this gem!That's exactly what linux has become: a gardening club for old ladies.
0 utility for outside world users (might be some aestetics in thick bushes like KDE until the musqitos and the bugs bite)
0 tolerance for offending the wife (systemd) of the mayor (mighty Microsoft)
0 future prospects (the last phase of Embrace Expand Extinguish is complete as proven by "Like any other USA corporation we arbitrarily ban russians").
In the trenches there's no such thing as COC but I'm sorry to say the war was lost long ago... Code warriors focused on technical debate rather than 'pronounsx' have no place in linux, now it's a club for corporate obedient slaves and their barren woke formalism.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by browseria View PostCitation needed. Specifically, what rule(s)?
Originally posted by browseria View PostYou seem to be knowledgeable enough to know that by the time the merge window window starts, all development has completed. Certainly all the work that Kent had planned for 6.13 was already complete and "in the can".
Originally posted by browseria View PostWhat I meant to say is yes he did break _A_ rule, but _that_ rule was modified AFTER the event had taken place ...
Originally posted by browseria View Post... and appears to have been retroactively applied for the express purpose of punishing one individual ...
That seems to be a sick, twisted way to interpret things. Since long before any of this the Linux kernel CoC has specifically said that the powers that be have to right to ban, temporarily or permanently, any contributors who violate the rules. That language was not added for Kent or for this situation. The CoC itself specifies banning as a punishment which can be meted out to individuals who break the rules.
What was added to the interpretation document is a way for some offenders to avoid being banned by apologizing for their infraction. You seem to believe that Kent being offered an alternative to being banned (an alternative that others in the past may not have gotten) is itself somehow unfair and unjust. Can you explain that logic?
Originally posted by browseria View Post... at a time when the situation no longer existed, it had already been resolved privately.
As many others have pointed out these rules are to create an environment where everyone can feel welcome and work efficiently. It isn't about only these two specific individuals. So whether or not the two of them are OK with it doesn't give them the right to subject everyone else to it.
Originally posted by browseria View PostOf course, it takes two to tango, so why this rule was applied to only one person is suspect.
And let's be honest: Kent is the problem child here and has been since long before this specific interaction. Sometimes interacting with a problem child can cause others to behave poorly. In order to be truly fair people in charge need to recognize that.
If you really want an answer to this question you could send a polite reply to the CoC announcement email asking it.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by clipcarl View Post
If you really want an answer to this question you could send a polite reply to the CoC announcement email asking it.
These people are not our friends and should be repudiated at every turn.
Comment
-
-
Here's another recent example of said bureaucracy
Andrew Tomazos, a long-time contributor to the ISO C++ standards committee, recently published a technical paper titled The Undefined Behavior Question . The paper explores the semantics of undefined behavior in C++ and examines this topic in the context of related research. However, controversy ar...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by clipcarl View Post...The Linux CoC and its rules have NOT been modified. What was modified was a document that tries to shed light on the process that the CoC committee uses to interpret the CoC. This document exists solely to provide transparency into the process and isn't itself part of the rules.
... That language was not added for Kent or for this situation. The CoC itself specifies banning as a punishment which can be meted out to individuals who break the rules.
What was added to the interpretation document is a way for some offenders to avoid being banned by apologizing for their infraction.
I went back and looked at the actual change to the text and you are correct, this was a clarification on enforcement and remediation, I don't know how I arrived at the other conclusion. Thank you for clarifying that.
Originally posted by clipcarl View PostAs many others have pointed out these rules are to create an environment where everyone can feel welcome and work efficiently. It isn't about only these two specific individuals. So whether or not the two of them are OK with it doesn't give them the right to subject everyone else to it.
Originally posted by clipcarl View Post...Kent is the problem child here and has been since long before this specific interaction. Sometimes interacting with a problem child can cause others to behave poorly. In order to be truly fair people in charge need to recognize that.
Here is where we split the baby. Every person has their own gifts. What Kent has in coding ability he seems to lack in interpersonal skills. But this isn't a static state of affairs. People can choose to change and behave in more socially accepted ways. What is needed by everyone is the patience and tolerance to work through these issues and get to the desired state - e.g., Linus Torvalds' change in approach. This is required by everyone in the community. We both have acknowledged issues in the past. But this is a new development cycle, its a new chance to execute better. I don't see Kent trying to get away with something here, what I see is a bad personal interaction that resulted in an unfortunate and uneven enforcement action. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Only the goose got cooked this time.
Originally posted by clipcarl View Post
If you really want an answer to this question you could send a polite reply to the CoC announcement email asking it.
Edit: I just read what fotomar and lyamc posted above. And while I agree that bureaucracy is not our friends, I don't think that making them enemies will correct that. However, that post by lyamc just made my blood boil. That is thought police, and political correctness at its worst - it has no place in a technical discussion and that is what initially got me riled about this story. People's expression shouldn't be moderated unless it harms someone else, and even then there may be call to do it.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by lyamc View PostHere's another recent example of said bureaucracy
Andrew Tomazos, a long-time contributor to the ISO C++ standards committee, recently published a technical paper titled The Undefined Behavior Question . The paper explores the semantics of undefined behavior in C++ and examines this topic in the context of related research. However, controversy ar...
Comment
-
Comment