Vulkan Adopts A Code Of Conduct

[johnc]

I think the best way to push back against this epidemic is simply never to accept to play by it. Never try to merge any code into a CoC-contaminated upstream project. Never add anything on their website. If you want to improve it, always fork, always merge from upstream, always accept contributions from other participants and always make it explicitly stated that you are steering clear from the CoC, and that you own absolutely nothing to Outreachy and their infinitesimal group of psychiatric ward patients.

Pretty much. You just have to check out. Going Galt, so to speak. But of course... that's also their intended goal. They want all of these projects destroyed. Just like they want to destroy the civilizations built by our ancestors.

Linux and most open source stuff has been going downhill for awhile now anyway. At this point, anything that accelerates it, the better.

[microcode]

"Don't you filthy incels know how to just be excellent to each other and treat people with respect or are you all just a bunch of terrible awful no-good horrible losers with bad social skills?"

Ahhh man... this place is hilarious.

I increasingly believe that a sense of irony is a moral virtue.

[microcode]

A yearning for order is no excuse for an abandonment of purpose.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8139

[jacob]

Pretty much. You just have to check out. Going Galt, so to speak. But of course... that's also their intended goal. They want all of these projects destroyed. Just like they want to destroy the civilizations built by our ancestors.

Linux and most open source stuff has been going downhill for awhile now anyway. At this point, anything that accelerates it, the better.

What makes you think open source has been going downhill? That's not what I see. But I also don't see how these sad individuals could destroy it. Open source is about being able to fork and keeping going on your terms. Fork a project, add your contributions and release it. If some SJW wants to contribute, sure thing, but it must be clear that no CoC is in effect there, and will never be, and if zir can't deal with that, xae can go get stuffed.

[audir8]

What a load of crap. We were a small fan game with a niche market, a market btw that has been expanding as the space flight sim genre has been making a revival. We were not trying to be something we weren't. That's a terrible attitude to have. The reality is that the project lead was just a BETTER programmer. He interned at NVIDIA, has a PHD in graphics programming, is published in NVIDIA books, and now works for a fortune 100 in the Valley. That kind of talent is just hard to find to work on a small game project for no money. Even now people still show interest in the engine but no one has a grasp of the entire codebase so nothing gets done to modernise it. Our project never needed a CoC because we just didn't act like assholes to each other. Something to consider. When you formalise these things you are weaponising them.

This is a false choice. Projects die for a lot of reasons, and it seems like the lead just got busy, unless you can point to something that says otherwise. This is about running the projects that are active in a better way, and you can do so without sacrificing code quality. I don't need to look further than my own experience to know a diverse team is a better team. By far.

[fuzz]

his is about running the projects that are active in a better way, and you can do so without sacrificing code quality. I don't need to look further than my own experience to know a diverse team is a better team. By far.

You don't need fascist rules to have diversity. That would actually decrease diversity by creating division. Maybe the fragmentation will be better for long-term survival of some projects, if we're lucky.

[GunpowaderGuy]

two reasons why these code of conducts are not type safe ( could be hijacked as badly written software )

a ) instead of even attempting to define a reason that being discriminated over for a given characteristic is not aceptable , such as the " differences in law must be based on ( relevant) factual differences " of ethics , a list is given , which would agraviate

b ) what constitutes harrasment , personal or political attacks ( means using power you have over other people , as in being able to lie without being refuted or command without being questioned , to hurt or defeat them ) is left undefined . Eg : merely explaining that the reasoning for the WHO to remove gender dysphoria as a mental dissorder was invalid ( that it was common for people to incorrectly think what it being such a condition entails rather than whether it fits the definition ), would most likely be considered an attack even if the topic had already been brought up , because it involves one of the characteristics from the aforementioned list

( i apologize in advance for my bad grammar and any missuse of formal logic terminology , please do not quote this comment before i fix it up , there is no need to , the thread wont see much more activity )

[Blahblah]

1) The timing of this is not coincidental, it is done because Linux added one. But then why not wait a month or two until the fallout of the Linux CoC has stabilized, and then evaluate the results? If one can only judge based on the last few days, I don't see how you can interpret that as a positive result, especially the whole "killswitch" thing. (Which, for the record, I don't think will work, or even have good side-effects if it did. That doesn't mean it can't start money-draining lawsuits, though)

2) The people saying "CoC's just say don't be a dick, if you disagree, you just haven't read it / are a terrible person!" are getting old really fast. It's such a cop-out argument; most people agree that you should try to be polite whenever possible. The main point of contention has been the implementation of its enforcement (_Who_ specifically gets to ban people) and the intentionally vague language. Newsflash: There is not a world-wide consensus on what is considered insulting or offensive. It changes nation to nation, culture to culture, and especially person to person. Anybody can claim anything is insulting and always be correct. Basically, these CoC's are adding an explicit weak-point to projects where control be forcibly taken. And what is the justification for adding such an apparatus? Because apparently the LKML was soooo tied-up on issues of race, sex, national politics, etc. prior to now.

[dkasak]

How about this?

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 (I hope I am allowed to post this link here).

I read that ticket. It wasn't clear whether anything actually came of the complaint or not, so you'd have to assume that nothing came of it. As was mentioned, there was no conduct inside the project that broke the CoC. Do you have evidence otherwise?

[theghost]

If you read up https://itsfoss.com/linux-code-of-conduct/ you will see how discussions on the lkml might end up in future.

- People who can't code or code up crap will try to get their code merged into the Kernel. If the merge is denied (for good reasons) they plead to the CoC for discrimination. Political bullshit discussions incoming, which drives people away. At worst, even crap code must be merged by now.
- In technical discussions people may make an unfavorable joke, ban request with bullshit discussions incoming. Result: true developers will stick to anonymous nicknames and/or technical discussions will happen in private or not at all.

It's interesting how the advocates of such policy (which was not required before at all) don't need to stick it. The creator of the CoC insults and discriminates people who does not correspond to it's views, also putting out the sjw twitter mob on them.

I really doubt that proposing freedem and equality by CoCs is the real motivation of these people.
In reality they just want to create opportunities to open ways for their own business, as a lot of these people are independant diversity consultants.
Just shame projects openly enough to create the impression it has diversity issues. Hey look I can offer consulting how to improve your diversity within your company/foundation.
Also another possiblity is that there are other financial sponsors, who might want to agitate in the dark but have an interest in driving rational project gatekeeper away, to get bad code into projects or damage project's public view by firing up senseless/untrue claims (which need just to loud enough).