Linux CoC Announces Decision Following Recent Bcachefs Drama

[Panix]

Let me defend the points where you disagree.


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.


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.


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.

Totally agree - whatever the problem/conflict is, Linus has a history of repetitively doing whatever Kent did - so much, that Linus* even 'went away' for a while.

It's laughable the number of stiffs on here criticizing KO - when this isn't behavior out of the ordinary in the Linux dev world - plus, the CoC isn't just a regulatory board to evaluate/dictate behavior - there's tons of allegations of it being politically active and forcing certain political views and adhering to certain political philosophies - which goes way beyond the original intentions of its original mandate or creation.

[moocow]

It's laughable the number of stiffs on here criticizing KO - when this isn't behavior out of the ordinary in the Linux dev world

If the behaviour was bad, and it was and is, then, at some point, you'd want to change its acceptability. At that point someone who wasn't paying attention is going to get burnt. That's the nature of the beast.

If this change was suddenly sprung with no warning and no chance to correct path then that would be unjust but this isn't the case here.

The big test will be if Linus loses his cool once again.

[lsatenstein]

I am making an assumption.

When one is putting in 12-14 hr days with development and debugging, what arises aside from fatigue is stress level and shortness of patience.
One can overreact to any irritant, instead of letting it slide by, with the response being a stress release and also not gentle-like.

Hopefully, apologies will have been sent, and extreme stress due to development efforts can be avoided for the future.

[lowflyer]

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.

Only if you change the meaning of "Restrict Kent Overstreet's participation in the kernel development process during the Linux 6.13 kernel development cycle." to actually mean "timeout". But did you really read the mailing list? Did you see this line: "I find the language used by Shuah on behalf of the Code of Conduct committee extremely patronising and passive aggressive."?

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.

You mistook that one. Please read my post again. I'm not talking about "them", it is a quote from Shagga, Son of Dolf :

(...) Kent needs to get his shit together (...)

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.

To you also: do not put words in my mouth I didn't say! I did not suggest a "free range of behavior". Again, I suggest you read what is available on the mailing list. To call that heated exchange of words "abuse" is a looooong stretch. And what about the agency of the so called "abused"? Is it ok to just run to the CoCC?
Why is saying the word *shit* considered to be an abuse while showing the cold shoulder to somebody else deemed to be "the correct way of handling it"? This is hypocrisy.

[moocow]

Only if you change the meaning of "Restrict Kent Overstreet's participation in the kernel development process during the Linux 6.13 kernel development cycle." to actually mean "timeout".

That's what it is. A timeout from participation.

But did you really read the mailing list? Did you see this line: "I find the language used by Shuah on behalf of the Code of Conduct committee extremely patronising and passive aggressive."?

And Shuah was never heard from since on the topic barring a reply where they indicated that they are willing to be educated on better comms. The timeout was given by another party in different language.

You mistook that one. Please read my post again. I'm not talking about "them", it is a quote from Shagga, Son of Dolf : (...) Kent needs to get his shit together (...)

That's what I was referring to.

And what about the agency of the so called "abused"? Is it ok to just run to the CoCC?

I believe that anyone can give a heads-up to the CoCC. It is also ok for them to do so and even more so if they are on the receiving end.

[lowflyer]

That's what it is. A timeout from participation.

Well, Kent is still allowed to write on the LKML where "the deed" happened, but his pull requests are rejected. How is this going to fix it? The reasoning of the CCoC, that he didn't grovel enough, is even more laughable.
All the while, Kent settled the "beef" with Michal and this "case" could have been over.

And Shuah was never heard from since on the topic barring a reply where they indicated that they are willing to be educated on better comms. The timeout was given by another party in different language.

It's not about persons. Shuah and the guy you call "other party" were both talking in their CCoC role. If that isn't the official voice of the CCoC, I don't know what is. There is at least one other person on the LKML agrees with Kent that the CCoC doesn't adhere to their own guidelines.

That's what I was referring to.

I don't think you got it. Context is important. Read what Shagga, Son of Dolf wrote *in this forum here*.

I believe that anyone can give a heads-up to the CoCC. It is also ok for them to do so and even more so if they are on the receiving end.

The CoCC's that are popping up everywhere are the cancer that are destroying Open Source projects. And this one is doing it for Linux. The fact that they did not pull themselves out after Kent and Michal settled their dispute is telling.