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

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 08:50 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>  Firstly, you gave an analytical response to what was, in my view, an
>  emotional observation.  While I agree with your analysis, it is
> largely  irrelevant.  It is not how people *feel* about kernel
> development.
> 
>  You say that the code of conflict is gone, but in fact much of it is
>  preserved in the code-of-conduct-interpretation.  If you reflect on
> the  focus of the second para of that document (which I think was
> directly  lifted from the code-of-conflict) you will see that value
> is placed  squarely on the code (kernel code, not code of
> conduct).  The code is  put forward as the thing of primary
> importance.  People (you, me) are  only mentioned in the context of
> being the authors of code that will be  criticised  - because (it
> almost says this) we care about the code, but not about you.
> 
>  So I think it is beyond argument that the value system presented by
>  this paragraph is
>       code > people

Actually, I think this whole code vs people debate is a straw man and
inherently inimical to the discussion. In neither code of conduct (old
or new) is there any statement that allows one to make a value judgment
of people relative to code, so the very premise you're all arguing on
doesn't exist.

The two separate, but related statements present in both systems are
that the technical quality of the code going into the kernel is
paramount and that we should try to be respectful of others in email or
other interactions including code reviews.  Code and people aren't
opposites: you can give purely technical reviews with a laser like
focus on quality and still do it respectfully.  Or to put it another
way: respecting code doesn't automatically mean you disrespect people,
which seems to be what the '>' was implying.

James

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part