Re: Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document

[Rainer Fiebig]

NeilBrown schrieb:
> On Thu, Oct 25 2018, Rainer Fiebig wrote:
> 
>> Am Montag, 22. Oktober 2018, 08:20:11 schrieb NeilBrown:
>>> On Sat, Oct 20 2018, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> As everyone knows by now, we added a new Code of Conduct to the kernel
>>>> tree a few weeks ago.
>>>
>>> I wanted to stay detached from all this, but as remaining (publicly)
>>> silent might be seen (publicly) as acquiescing, I hereby declare that:
>>>    I reject, as illegitimate, this Code and the process by
>>>    which it is being "developed".
>>>
>>> It is clear from the surrounding discussions that this is well outside our
>>> core competencies.  It will be flawed, it isn't what we need.
>>>
>>> I call on any other community members who reject this process to say so,
>>> not to remain silent.
>>> #Iobject
>>>
>>> We don't need a "Code of Conduct" nearly as much as we need "Leadership
>>> in conduct".  Without the leadership, any code looks like a joke.
>>>
>> [...]
>>  
>>> I call on you, Greg:
>>>  - to abandon this divisive attempt to impose a "Code of Conduct"
>>>  - to revert 8a104f8b5867c68
>>
>> Yes but this seems increasingly unlikely now. However, there may be an 
>> alternative.
>>
>> Jugding by the release-message for 4.19, some people here are fans of 
>> Monty Python's. No wonder - as those guys are famous for being unrelenting 
>> supporters of Political Correctness.
>>
>> So one would be on the safe side if one just supplemented "Our Pledge" 
>> with this:
>>
>> 	"Everybody has the right to be offended."
>>
>> I think, John Cleese would also welcome this.[1]
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> I do think that giving certain rights to the community is a good thing:
> - the right to tell anyone that their speech is hurtful
> - the right to (patch) review by a third party.
> 
> I don't think the right to be offended really needs to be given.
> Yes, I know it is a joke and I do like Monty Python.  I just don't think
> it is particular helpful in this context. Maybe I missed something.

Of course it's a joke and iirc it was indeed John Cleese who made it. But he
made it for a reason, out of concern. It has a serious core.

The question is: what *is* helpful in this matter?

Just saying "this is not helpful" isn't helpful either. It's a well-known
killer-phrase that has been used ad nauseam in this discussion. But an
alternative is never given. And thus it's just an other way of saying
"Eat it. And shut tf up!"

Not even *constructive* criticism is helpful. AFAIK I'm the only one here who
came up with a *complete* alternative - ignored. Others provided patches for
certain sections - ignored. Data that indicate that this may be detrimental to
Linux - ignored. Almost anything that was provided by me or others - ignored.

What kind of community or attitude is this? This feels more like "The Wall" or
North Korea than an Open-Source-project.

And what beat everything was to misuse famously politically *in*correct Monty
Python to malign criticism of this Political-Correctness-monster. The
"People's Front" - message will forever be a prominent exhibit in "Monty
Python's Hall of Shame". And the author should be banned from laughing about
MP-sketches until he recants. Perhaps one should also report this incident to
the "Ministry of Silly CoCs". ;)

> For myself, I relinquish my right to be offended.  I just don't do it.
> It doesn't seem to be worth the effort.

I don't. John Cleese is a smart guy. And he has a point.


OK, thanks for your reply! But I think it's time for me to move on. "Cut your
losses", as they say.


Good luck and regards!

Rainer Fiebig

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature