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

From: NeilBrown
Date: Fri Oct 26 2018 - 18:40:31 EST

On Fri, Oct 26 2018, Rainer Fiebig wrote:

> 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!"

You asked me what I thought, and I told you what I thought.
If you think differently, you are quite welcome tell us - to explain the
way in which you think the addition would be helpful.

> 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.

From my perspective, providing a complete alternative is no better than
what Greg did - provided a "complete" "code of conduct".

Engage in discussion, present your case, make me *want* to read your
document because you've shown me how it relates to me.

> 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.

Thanks for participating!


> Good luck and regards!
> Rainer Fiebig

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature