Linux CoC Announces Decision Following Recent Bcachefs Drama

[moocow]

His response both in the mailing list and on Patreon raised an eyebrow. I typed an analysis of it up but, well, then I asked copilot and it did it better. That email he quoted was a non-apology and typical of abusers. It follows a typical "apology, excuses, roses" format.

I hope that he takes the next few months of exclusion from the group he wished to join to get some help in recognising not only how badly he behaved but how to stop behaving in such a manner. If Linus can do it, sure as snot, Ken can also.

PROMPT:
Can you analyze the following text with respect to the list provided by https://psychcentral.com/pro/exhaust...ive-behavior#1 and detail which part of the email fits which of the 8 excuses in the psych central blog post?

Text to analyze:
I do want to apologize...

REPLY:
Let's analyze this text with respect to the excuses provided in the Psych Central article:

1. The abuser apologizes for their actions, but quickly offers an excuse.

• Text: "I do want to apologize for things getting this heated the other day, but I need to also tell you why I reacted the way I did."
• Explanation: The apology is immediately followed by an excuse, diminishing the sincerity of the apology.

2. The abuser downplays their actions by saying it was not personal.

• Text: "Firstly, it's nothing personal: I'm not axe grinding against you (although you were a major source of frustration for myself and Suren in the memory allocation profiling discussions, and I hope you can recognize that as well)."
• Explanation: This statement attempts to downplay the behavior by saying it was not personally directed, which can invalidate the recipient's feelings.

3. The abuser blames the victim or external circumstances for their behavior.

• Text: "But I do take correctness issues very seriously, and I will get frosty or genuinely angry if they're being ignored or brushed aside."
• Explanation: The blame is shifted to the victim or the situation, justifying the abusive behavior as a reaction to external factors.

4. The abuser minimizes their actions by suggesting everyone behaves this way.

• Text: "The reality is that experience, and to be frank, standards of professionalism, do vary within the kernel community, and I have had some _outrageous_ fights over things as bad as silent data corruption bugs."
• Explanation: This suggests that such behavior is common and acceptable within the community, minimizing the seriousness of the actions.

5. The abuser suggests their actions were necessary and justifiable.

• Text: "So - I am _not_ inclined to let things slide, even if it means being the asshole at times."
• Explanation: This justifies the behavior as necessary to maintain standards and correctness, making it seem justifiable.

6. The abuser acknowledges the behavior but claims others do the same.

• Text: "Thankfully, most people aren't like that. Dave, Willy, Linus - we can be shouting at each other, but we still listen, and we know how not to take it personally and focus on the technical when there's something serious going on."
• Explanation: This acknowledges the behavior but normalizes it by saying others in the community also engage in similar actions.

7. The abuser points out their actions have a positive aspect or are for the greater good.

• Text: "So for the record: I'm not trying to roadblock you or anyone else, I'm just trying to make sure we all have shit that _works_."
• Explanation: This claims the behavior is for the greater good, emphasizing the positive intent behind the actions.

8. The abuser compliments the victim to lessen the impact of their actions.

• Text: "And I have been noticing you stepping up in discussions more, and I'd like to encourage that, if I may."
• Explanation: This compliment is used to soften the impact of the previous abusive behavior, making it more palatable.

[Shagga, Son of Dolf]

He used a style of "letting the experts discuss it out - then take the solution that evolves out of it"Linus was never a real leader. He used a style of "letting the experts discuss it out - then take the solution that evolves out of it". That's not real leadership. In the past, he encouraged to "Fight passionately for things you think are important". With these CoC actions, Linus has become untrue to himself.

As some in this forum already mentioned: The good times of Linux are over.

I am amazed how much people freak out about plain insults not being possible anymore without consequences. It's pretty bizarre to claim that 'experts' need to be able to resort to insults and childish flamewars in order to discuss a technical issue.

I really want to see Bcachefs mature in the kernel. But you don't join a group and uproot their established way out of pure arrogance. Kent needs to get his shit together and bend to the rules. Or he can go his own way and do his own kernel, if he believes that 'experts' prefer his way of doing things, and that people would flock around him. I am highly doubtful about that.

[User29]

[QUOTE=lowflyer;n1508544]As a rational human being I would expect the same level of professionalism that is expected from Kent, from the others as well - even from the CoC.

100% agree.

This whole drama could have been cut short by Linus putting down his word of authority

... by telling Kent that this was his last rodeo here, STFU and go back to his lair and continue his work there. When and if the FS is really production ready then it can be merged into the mainline.

Linus was never a real leader.

Maybe was, maybe not.

Linus has become untrue to himself.

He just grown up at last, realized the world has changed, the old ways won't work anymore. He's mature now. TBH I always disliked his confrontational "fuck you all" style. It was infantile, it was clear that he never really worked at real companies so he couldn't outgrow his childish "I'm a twentysomething college guy, and you are all morons" manner. Now it's over and I'm quite happy with it. I think it became obvious even for him, that Linux became the OS that drives the world therefore it's leader can't act as an idiot.

The good times of Linux are over.

100% disagree. It can't be allowed by any means that Linux would be associated with a lot of mom's basement dwelling nerds who are brwaling on mail lists like drunken sailors.

Kent left himself ~15-20 years behind and is missing to notice it.

[Panix]

This is what happens when constant consumption of propaganda turns your brain to soup

Actually, the brains turning to soup are the pair that you two have. It's not just requiring civil discourse - it's about politics requiring ppl to adhere to certain ideas and beliefs - and if you go off that, you are vilified or disciplined.

Sure, this guy Kent - went off the rails a bit - but, he tried to explain his frustration and most of all, it's nothing we haven't seen before - Linux made a habit of it for a while until 'they' took him aside and I suppose they forced him to have some 'behind the scenes' discipline/therapy? In other words, enough pressure was applied to him that he supposedly amended his behavior and afaik, he 'self-censors' himself - did he really modify his behavior or acquire a new mentality? Dunno....But, that seems what they want to do this guy....

All of them act like children and a lot of them seem to have 'power hungry' attitudes.

[lyamc]

Can you analyze the following text with respect to the list provided by https://psychcentral.com/pro/exhaust...ive-behavior#1 and detail which part of the email fits which of the 8 excuses in the psych central blog post?

You're an idiot. I can take your first two paragraphs, throw it through the AI, and it will do the exact same thing. AI is able to turn water into wine, in the linguistic sense, because it always sounds correct even when it isn't.

If you aren't intellectually lazy you'll understand that looking for malice in someone will result in you finding malice

[moocow]

You're an idiot.

First off, thank you for your abusive reply.

I can take your first two paragraphs, throw it through the AI, and it will do the exact same thing. AI is able to turn water into wine, in the linguistic sense, because it always sounds correct even when it isn't.

I did that:

Let's analyze the provided text with respect to the excuses listed in the Psych Central article:

1. The abuser apologizes for their actions, but quickly offers an excuse.
   • Text: "That email he quoted was a non-apology and typical of abusers. It follows a typical 'apology, excuses, roses' format."
   • Explanation: The phrase "non-apology" implies that the apology is insincere and immediately followed by excuses, fitting the pattern described.
2. The abuser downplays their actions by saying it was not personal.
   • Text: Not directly addressed in this summary.
   • Explanation: While this specific excuse isn't explicitly mentioned, the "apology, excuses, roses" format often includes downplaying the actions.
3. The abuser blames the victim or external circumstances for their behavior.
   • Text: Not directly addressed in this summary.
   • Explanation: The text doesn't provide specific instances of blaming the victim or external circumstances, but the mention of "excuses" suggests it might include such behavior.
4. The abuser minimizes their actions by suggesting everyone behaves this way.
   • Text: Not directly addressed in this summary.
   • Explanation: This specific excuse isn't explicitly mentioned in the summary, but it could be part of the overall pattern of excuses.
5. The abuser suggests their actions were necessary and justifiable.
   • Text: Not directly addressed in this summary.
   • Explanation: The text doesn't provide specific instances of justifying the behavior, but the pattern of excuses might include such justifications.
6. The abuser acknowledges the behavior but claims others do the same.
   • Text: Not directly addressed in this summary.
   • Explanation: This specific excuse isn't explicitly mentioned in the summary, but it could be part of the overall pattern of excuses.

If you aren't intellectually lazy you'll understand that looking for malice in someone will result in you finding malice

It should be noted that Ken being an abuser did not come from the copilot analysis but, rather, was obvious from reading the email he provided and having seen his performance in action on the bcachefs mailing list (to which I subscribe and read (more-or-less) in real time).

It is unlikely you would be able to see him as abusive because, as demonstrated, your first go-to is to be abusive.

That said, I requested the copilot analysis to see how to would compare to my own keenly aware that copilot can make things up (from my own experience with it). It matched, not only in its conclusions but where they stemmed from. Given that it was better phrased than what I had rolling around informally I used it instead of my own text to save myself hassle.

May you have a pleasant day.

[lowflyer]

I am amazed how much people freak out about plain insults not being possible anymore without consequences.

If that would be remotely true then at least two other people should have been kicked off the list as well.

But I'm against bans. The only thing bans achieve is a polarization. "Consequences" should be fair and applied with moderation. A timeout would have been sufficient and the others that engaged in the (what you call) flame-wars should have been included.

It's pretty bizarre to claim that 'experts' need to be able to resort to insults and childish flamewars in order to discuss a technical issue.

I never claimed that. Don't put words in my mouth I've never said. I referred to something Linus said. I don't remember his exact wording but it was about "discussing issues". Perhaps he even used much stronger language. He encourages people to passionately defend their ideas. This is a far cry from "insults and childish flame-wars". If you're unable to see the difference, you are part of the problem.

I really want to see Bcachefs mature in the kernel. But you don't join a group and uproot their established way out of pure arrogance. Kent needs to get his shit together and bend to the rules. Or he can go his own way and do his own kernel, if he believes that 'experts' prefer his way of doing things, and that people would flock around him. I am highly doubtful about that.

You want to see the technical merits of Bcachefs - but you call Kent "arrogant" and his work "shit"? How does that go together? (that these words would have kicked you off the list under the same ruling is very likely, but besides the point here)

Brilliant minds frequently have "social issues". This is not a new idea. This is commonplace knowledge. Good project leaders are able to include brilliant minds - even with their attitudes. Banning them is only to the detriment of the overall project.

[moocow]

If that would be remotely true then at least two other people should have been kicked off the list as well.

But I'm against bans. The only thing bans achieve is a polarization. "Consequences" should be fair and applied with moderation. A timeout would have been sufficient and the others that engaged in the (what you call) flame-wars should have been included.

A timeout is what Ken got and no one else was being abusive so it's fair that only he gets to sit in the corner.

You want to see the technical merits of Bcachefs - but you call Kent "arrogant" and his work "shit"? How does that go together? (that these words would have kicked you off the list under the same ruling is very likely, but besides the point here)

I don't see where they called Ken's work shit. They said that he needs to get his shit together, which refers to his attitude and ability to work well with others.

Brilliant minds frequently have "social issues". This is not a new idea. This is commonplace knowledge. Good project leaders are able to include brilliant minds - even with their attitudes. Banning them is only to the detriment of the overall project.

Brilliant minds need to, at the least, do some of the work so as not to be abusive. No one owes them free range of behaviour. It is entirely fair that they, as everyone else, be expected to work with others without abusing them.

[lowflyer]

Let me defend the points where you disagree.

... by telling Kent that this was his last rodeo here, STFU and go back to his lair and continue his work there. When and if the FS is really production ready then it can be merged into the mainline.

Well Linus did that already a few months back. Remember? The wording he used then was a thing to behold. He should have put down his word again now. But calling in the CoCC cavalry against only one of the participants is unnecessary and unfair at least.

He just grown up at last, realized the world has changed, the old ways won't work anymore. He's mature now. TBH I always disliked his confrontational "fuck you all" style. It was infantile, it was clear that he never really worked at real companies so he couldn't outgrow his childish "I'm a twentysomething college guy, and you are all morons" manner. Now it's over and I'm quite happy with it. I think it became obvious even for him, that Linux became the OS that drives the world therefore it's leader can't act as an idiot.

The mere fact that "Linus' growth" is discussed in public - even by journalists - shows he is not. He doesn't stand his own ground. He's not able to say directly to Kent's face: "Hey Kent, we do want it to be done this way". To use an anonymous CoCC to defend his position shows his weakness. It would not be wrong to use the CoCC in the background as "advisory board", but the words should come out of Linus' mouth. That's like Jean-Pierre explaining what Biden actually meant.
If there is one constant in Linus' life, it's: "let the others decide". One might argue this is correct for a public open source project. But he never learnt to take tough decisions that way. Read his biography for some clues.

100% disagree. It can't be allowed by any means that Linux would be associated with a lot of mom's basement dwelling nerds who are brwaling on mail lists like drunken sailors.

Kent left himself ~15-20 years behind and is missing to notice it.

Say, say, say. You are pretty lucky that Michael does not employ a CoCC on this list here. Calling somebody a "drunken sailor" and a "mom's basement dweller nerd" would kick you out immediately.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash Linus or diminish his merits at all. But wrongdoing should be pointed out. There is something else this whole story shows: Linus might already be planning his retirement. Slowly retreating to the background. Not really deciding on a successor. He let other people do what actually is his job.

[lyamc]

First off, thank you for your abusive reply.

Don't act retarded.