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

[Rainer Fiebig]

NeilBrown schrieb:
> 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.
> 

Neil, this is probably a misunderstanding. I really value your initiative and
dedication in this matter.

My suggestion of adding the "right to be offended" was of course just a
sarcastic joke. I thought this was obvious, especially since I provided the
link to the interview with John Cleese. But it wasn't obvious to you
and I'm sorry for that.

BTW - it just strikes me: perhaps this endless enumeration of
protected/privileged classes was also just a joke and *I* didn't see it? ;)

OK. "Not helpful":
This is indeed a killer-phrase used to suppress critique and to silence
people. I just wanted to expose this.

It was not directed at *you*. That's why I began my critique with
>> "The question is: what *is* helpful in this matter?"

>>
>> 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".
> 

I think in your message of 10/21/18 you asked for it:
"What is the document that you would have liked to have read as you were
starting out? [...]"

In my reply I also made it clear that my suggestion was just intended as an
example that *of course* would have to be discussed:
"On the day the patch came out, I started working on a modified version,
a CoC that I could have lived with. [...].

So please find below what I would have submitted for discussion."

And if that's not *constructive* criticism, I don't know what is.

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

I think, I engaged in this discussion earlier than you did. My first post was
on 10/09/18.

And I have already presented my case several times, including examples for why
I'm opposed to this CoC, concrete proposals for modification and some data
that show that it may be detrimental to Linux. I also suggested to revert the
patch, set up a task-force to come up with an alternate CoC, discuss it etc.
And all of this early enough.

There's no point in repeating it. So - what else could I do?

And why should you *want* to read my document? I don't know. Perhaps because
you asked for it? Or to get some ideas how the same can be achieved without a
political sting? Up to you.

But I will definitely no longer participate in this discussion unless there
are clear indications by those who introduced this stuff that a discussion
is appreciated and its outcome may lead to changes in the CoC.

Because else I know of better ways to waste my time. ;)


Kind regards - and have a good weekend!


Rainer Fiebig


>>
>> 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!
> 
> NeilBrown
> 
>>
>> Good luck and regards!
>>
>> Rainer Fiebig

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature