Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.

[Edward Cree]

The new Code of Conduct makes me feel threatened and uncomfortable.

No, really. As a person with (diagnosed) Asperger's, I'm a member of,
Âobjectively, a marginalised minority. Effectively (i.e. this is a massive
Âoversimplification), I was born without the hard-wired circuitry for 
social
Âinteractions that is normally a part of the human brain; consequently 
I have
Âto run a slow and inaccurate software simulation when interacting with
Â'normal' people.

In nearly all the communities I participate in, this is a constantly 
limiting
Âfactor for me. But there is one world that is blessedly free of such 
things:
Âthe world of open-source software. It is one of the last places where my
Âparticular neurodiversity does _not_ mark me out as Other, does _not_ 
force
Âme to carefully watch what I say and present a falsely constructed 
faÃade in
Âplace of my real identity. For here, we care not for 'feelings'; 
either the
Âcode is good or it is bad, and in the latter case we say so directly and
Âbluntly. Not only does this mean that I don't have to guard my tongue 
when
Âcritiquing someone else's patch, far more importantly it means I can
Âunderstand what's being said when _my_ patches are criticised. 
(Almost all
Âof my best ideas and patches have been born out of someone telling me I'm
Âwrong.)

The Linux kernel community is a place without office politics, without 
subtle
Âsubtexts, without primate dominance dynamics. A place where criticism 
_can_
Âbe gracefully accepted _without_ having to worry that admitting to being
Âwrong will lower one's status. A place where I, and people like me, 
can feel
Âat home, and maybe even create something of value.

And the Contributor Covenant looks very much like the camel's nose of an
Âattempt to take that place, that community, away from me. To replace 
it with
Âan Orwellian nightmare where I must forever second-guess what is safe 
to say.
Â(First they came for "master/slave replication", and I did not speak up
Âbecause I was not a DBA.)

I cannot speak for my employer (hence why I am posting this from my personal
Âaddress), but to the extent that my rÃle as a contributor to the 
networking
Âsubsystem, and as co-maintainer of the sfc driver, gives me any 
standing in a
Â_personal_ capacity, I absolutely cannot sign up to this 'Pledge' nor 
accept
Âthe 'Responsibilities' to police the speech of others that it makes a 
duty of
Âmaintainership, and I urge the project leadership to revert its adoption.

Some elements of the Code are unobjectionable; sexual advances, for 
instance,
Âhave no place on the lkml (though they may at, say, a conference, and not
Âeveryone can reliably predict whether they are unwelcome), and the 
ability of
Âkernel developers to accept constructive criticism is one of the strengths
Âthat has made Linux what it is. But far too many of its provisions 
rely on
Âill-defined terms, and thus give those charged with interpreting those 
terms
Âthe power to destroy livelihoods. By placing a corporate body (the LF) in
Âthe position of arbiter, an avenue is opened for commercial pressure to be
Âapplied; and the legalistic phrasing of the Code practically invites 
rules-
Âlawyering whereby the most abusive may twist it into a weapon to further
Âtheir abuse.

If the Code were reduced to something more like the old Code of Conflict,
Âreminding people to 'be liberal in what they accept and conservative 
in what
Âthey emit', and clarifying that patch submissions should be judged by the
Â_code_ and not by any characteristics or beliefs of the submitter (I don't
Âthink the enumerated list of protected classes is helpful, as a legalistic
Âabuser can always slip into a crack between them), I think the sting 
would be
Âdrawn. Probably the CoConflict would make a better base from which to 
draft
Âsuch a document.

(A note for the irony-challenged: where I use Progressive terms-of-art, such
Âas 'marginalised', 'Other' and 'identity', in the above, I am 
endeavouring to
Âshow that this alleged push for 'inclusiveness' fails on its own 
terms; I am
Â_not_ accepting the theory behind those terms nor suggesting that, in
Âreality, the kernel community owes me any special treatment on account 
of my
Â'diversity'.)