SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Last week, Phoronix broke a story about the kernel DRM group over at FreeDesktop.org submitting a pull request for their code of conduct to be included in the kernel docs for the DRM subsystem. The next day it was merged.
I'm particularly interested in if they think this will keep Linus from saying hurtful things to them over lousy code. Discuss.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Torvalds Merges DRM CoC Into 4.12 Development Repo
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 80 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
* m2 stares at the monitor... it looks like a hamburger...
m2 - that's a bad sign
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday May 08 2017, @06:56PM (35 children)
Firstly, the CoC [freedesktop.org] applies to those who are part of the freedesktop.org community. If you're not, why should you give a damn?
The goals seem to be fairly reasonable, the issues will really only come if the CoC is re-purposed to punish or force folks out, rather than fostering a positive environment. Execution is everything here.
Using a CoC to stifle dissenting ideas and ostracize folks with whom you disagree can (and has) destroy an OSS project. This is not a positive outcome, but some folks (and they come in every stripe) are intolerant fuckheads.
As such, it seems to me that CoCs aren't the problem, intolerant and thin-skinned assholes are the problem.
As far as the FreeDesktop CoC is concerned, it seems to me that few (IMHO) would suggest that the goals are not laudable:
The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
I don't want to see goatse or get hit on in a software development forum. If I want to see porn or find a sex partner, there are more appropriate forums.
Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
Saying "your code sucks and here's why..." isn't troiling or insulting, assuming that said person's code actually sucks.
Saying "your code sucks because you're a dick" doesn't add anything and diminishes cooperative environments.
Saying stuff like "you like to fuck small animals and wet the bed..." or "You [Hillary|Trump|Sanders] supporters will be the first up against the wall..." has no place in a software development forum.
Public or private harassment
This is inappropriate pretty much everywhere. Full stop.
Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
Who thinks doxxing is appropriate?
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
What are the goals of Freedesktop.org? according to them [freedesktop.org]:
If it doesn't relate to the above, what is someone's purpose in injecting it into the discussion?
===
All that said, it should be obvious that folks should act in reasonable ways and treat others with a modicum of respect. Sadly, there are a number (usually vanishingly small but quite vociferous) of folks who are fucking assholes.
It's those folks at whom CoCs are aimed. Unfortunately, some folks try (and sometimes succeed) to hijack these measures to suit their own ends. As such, toxicity can come from several directions. Unless those who are tasked with executing and enforcing CoCs are reasonable people, there will be problems.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday May 08 2017, @07:22PM (10 children)
The CoC may prevent the negative feedback needed to keep a project on track. And we all know how a positive feedback loop works in the long run..
Some people just needs to know that that their design or code just won't cut it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday May 08 2017, @07:24PM (6 children)
Sometimes negative feedback doesn't help either. Look at Gnome/systemd.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday May 08 2017, @07:42PM (5 children)
Gnome, I'll give you. Nothing bad said about gnome made the slightest difference.
But the negative feedback systemd received seems to have helped immensely in the documentation area. Its at least intelligible and coherent these days.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @07:46PM (3 children)
Yeah, the tsunami of negative feedback about systemd was about the documentation.
Pull my finger frojack!
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 08 2017, @08:46PM (2 children)
It's probably just a defensive reaction. They know system'd is "a disaster" like the White house would put it.. But at least it's a known how the junk works.
Now we just need to find Poetternigg and nuke from orbit to be sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @10:02PM
Your projection of what you believe to what they "know" is pretty funny.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Tuesday May 09 2017, @01:05AM
Now we just need to find Poetternigg and nuke from orbit to be sure.
While I approve of your methods, I disagree with the payload of your ordinance. A nuke isn't nearly enough to eradicate systemd and its originator from the solar system. I think you'd need some sort of discombobulator to obliterate a planet. Launching a firm of hive-mind lawyers against the targets might work too.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday May 08 2017, @08:58PM
... but it still exists.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday May 08 2017, @08:00PM (2 children)
The CoC may prevent the negative feedback needed to keep a project on track. And we all know how a positive feedback loop works in the long run..
As long as reasonable people whose goal is the success of the project are executing/enforcing a CoC, that shouldn't be an issue. If someone with a different agenda is doing so, there may well be problems.
If everyone acted professionally, and got involved to achieve a shared goal, clearly defined rules wouldn't be necessary. Sadly, there are often a few that can't or won't do so.
Some people just needs to know that that their design or code just won't cut it.
As I explicitly said, that sort of communication should be appropriate.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 08 2017, @08:51PM (1 child)
As I explicitly said, that sort of communication should be appropriate.
The problem is that some people just can't handle declined affirmation. Be it snowflake or someone with high position in a established company that just can't hack it that a 16 year old with pimples smack their fingers at security.
As soon as there are rules. There will also be people that find all kinds of "bu-but you broke rule 2.4.34. section z five days ago!". In the larger society they are called lawyers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @10:04PM
> The problem is that some people just can't handle declined affirmation.
I don't think you intended to go meta with your response.
But you sure did.
(Score: 2, Touché) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday May 08 2017, @07:57PM (8 children)
I think you're being disrespectful. I'm also going to pull my status here. Unless you're a womyn-born-womyn, I outrank you.
If you ask me to identify which part of your post was disrespectful, I'll take that as further disrespect and accuse you of both transphobia and misogyny. I might even telephone (or is it tweet these days?) some white knights and ask them to pipe up on the mailing list insinuating that you're an incel who hates women because you can't get laid. I will do this even if, and possibly especially if, I have reason to believe you're a homosexual man.
If you attempt to point out that these white knights are engaged in “Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks” or maybe “The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances,” you're wrong. See above where I pulled rank^Wstatus. I outrank you.
***
Anyway, my point is you are dealing with people who are deranged hypocritical sociopaths (possibly psychopaths too, but IANAPsychologist).
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday May 08 2017, @08:43PM (5 children)
I think you're being disrespectful. I'm also going to pull my status here. Unless you're a womyn-born-womyn, I outrank you.
If you ask me to identify which part of your post was disrespectful, I'll take that as further disrespect and accuse you of both transphobia and misogyny. I might even telephone (or is it tweet these days?) some white knights and ask them to pipe up on the mailing list insinuating that you're an incel who hates women because you can't get laid. I will do this even if, and possibly especially if, I have reason to believe you're a homosexual man.
If you attempt to point out that these white knights are engaged in “Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks” or maybe “The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances,” you're wrong. See above where I pulled rank^Wstatus. I outrank you.
***
Anyway, my point is you are dealing with people who are deranged hypocritical sociopaths (possibly psychopaths too, but IANAPsychologist).
Your satire is a little weak, but I take your point.
And that's exactly what a reasonable CoC framework coupled with reasonable people tasked with executing/enforcing said CoC is supposed to address.
There are numerous ways that can go off the rails. At the same time, there are enough jackasses to require some sort of framework to deter that sort of behavior.
What would you suggest otherwise? Throwing up our hands and saying "this is too hard, we're closing down ${PROJECT}" or "screw you guys, I'm going home!"?
It's sad that this is even an issue, but the results from ignoring it can (and in some cases, have) been much, much worse.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by oakgrove on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:10PM (4 children)
What would you suggest otherwise? Throwing up our hands and saying "this is too hard, we're closing down ${PROJECT}" or "screw you guys, I'm going home!"?
How about, "Fuck this open source free software horse shit. I'll just use the proprietary analog and you can stick your little project and your political bullshit up your ass."
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:18PM (3 children)
What would you suggest otherwise? Throwing up our hands and saying "this is too hard, we're closing down ${PROJECT}" or "screw you guys, I'm going home!"?
How about, "Fuck this open source free software horse shit. I'll just use the proprietary analog and you can stick your little project and your political bullshit up your ass."
That addresses your involvement. Do you have any suggestions that are germane to the discussion, or are you just trolling?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by oakgrove on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:21PM (2 children)
Are you stupid?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:46PM (1 child)
You've answered my question. Thanks.
Now back under the bridge with you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by oakgrove on Wednesday May 10 2017, @06:36AM
Now back under the bridge with you.
Catch phrases and clichés can't make for the fact that you've actually
answered my question.
Thanks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @08:57PM
Psychopaths tend to have higher IQs and better social skills than sociopaths. These people don't even make it to psychopath status.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @10:22PM
Sure, google-fu on cluster-b's reveals:
Variations are due to study sizes, estimates (aspd individuals are rarely diagnosed) and the fact that many of these diagnosed with one of these disorders will often present with comorbidity of others.
Emotional manipulation, pathological lying and psychological projection (victim playing) are the tell-tale signs of the dramatic personality disorders. At least 10% of the general population have one or more of these disorders and they are experts at the tools of their trade. We tell them to fuck off, we do not give them a set of rules by which they can frame innocent people. Direct communication is the best communication, do not let them triangulate. [wikipedia.org]
The ability to say "your code is shit" is a perfectly valid criticism after a few substandard patches. Managers must in fact be free to say this on open source projects.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday May 08 2017, @07:59PM (3 children)
Sadly, there are a number (usually vanishingly small but quite vociferous) of folks who are fucking assholes.
I wish that the number was vanishingly small.
Around here they all seem to post as AC, so there could be one or one million for all we know.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday May 08 2017, @08:04PM
Sadly, there are a number (usually vanishingly small but quite vociferous) of folks who are fucking assholes.
I wish that the number was vanishingly small.
Around here they all seem to post as AC, so there could be one or one million for all we know.
Given that this is a general discussion site, I don't really have an issue with that.
In a forum for discussion/furtherance of a specific software package(s), that's a different story. If you're not working towards making said project succeed and, in fact, are hindering progress, then you shouldn't be (either voluntarily or otherwise) involved in that forum.
At least that's how I see it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @08:22PM
FYI: I for one have never fucked an asshole in my life and would never dream of puckering up for "DRM CoC" either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @10:06PM
> Around here they all seem to post as AC, so there could be one or one million for all we know.
Do they?
Seriously man, you are one of the minor assholes on this site.
And your snowflake responses to blunt criticism make your complaints about all the other assholes particularly ironic.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by melikamp on Monday May 08 2017, @08:52PM (2 children)
I think the parts you quoted are mostly reasonable. There is, however, a couple of clauses you omitted:
Emphasis mine. These are personally subjective (a comment is threatening as long as a single project member feels threatened), or relative to a community standard at best (a comment is threatening as long as a critical mass of contributors feels threatened). Unlike with sensible objective restrictions (like sex talk bans), there is no objective measure of these things, and there can't be any in principle. Absolutely any behavior can trigger a member being offended and/or threatened, paving a way for the arbitrary ostracism a la Garfield of Drupal. This opens up a truly golden trolling opportunity for any schmo who is willing to claim being offended by a project member they don't like. All they need to do is be persistent and look for like-minded individuals to keep up a stream of complaints legitimized by the CoC.
I can only wish lots of good luck to every project using Contributor Covenant: they will need it. They are pretty much asking to be trolled in the way I just described, and there is nothing they can do against these trolls, as everything will be legit and by the letter of the CoC.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday May 08 2017, @09:05PM (1 child)
I think the parts you quoted are mostly reasonable. There is, however, a couple of clauses you omitted:
Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
Emphasis mine. These are personally subjective (a comment is threatening as long as a single project member feels threatened), or relative to a community standard at best (a comment is threatening as long as a critical mass of contributors feels threatened). Unlike with sensible objective restrictions (like sex talk bans), there is no objective measure of these things, and there can't be any in principle. Absolutely any behavior can trigger a member being offended and/or threatened, paving a way for the arbitrary ostracism a la Garfield of Drupal. This opens up a truly golden trolling opportunity for any schmo who is willing to claim being offended by a project member they don't like. All they need to do is be persistent and look for like-minded individuals to keep up a stream of complaints legitimized by the CoC.
I can only wish lots of good luck to every project using Contributor Covenant: they will need it. They are pretty much asking to be trolled in the way I just described, and there is nothing they can do against these trolls, as everything will be legit and by the letter of the CoC.
I consciously didn't include that clause, as it opens a real can of worms. That's not to say I was trying to minimize the potential issues, I wasn't. Rather, I wanted to point up the fact that the general goals of this specific CoC (and most others) are pretty reasonable.
I did mention that making a CoC successful was dependent upon having reasonable people administering/enforcing such CoCs, and that there was the risk that some folks could hijack the process for their own ends.
You are quite correct that there are issues with proper execution. At the same time, given that there are some who simply will not treat others professionally, or at least with simple human respect, I'm not sure what else can be done.
If you have some alternative ideas to address the dickheads, I'd love to hear them.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @03:11AM
> making a CoC successful was dependent upon having reasonable people administering/enforcing such CoCs,
Fundamentally that is the basis of all governance. In that respect CoCs are no different from HOAs, professional organizations like the bar, or government.
Good governance takes dedication and work. Some people seem to think that its better that there be no governance. At best those people are just wishful thinkers, believing that some "invisible hand" will automagically produce good results - at worst, like the submitter, they are nihilists.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 09 2017, @01:21AM (6 children)
Seriously, if you need a CoC beyond "don't be a dick without good reason"*, you're focusing on the wrong things.
*) Being Linus Torvalds is a good reason.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 09 2017, @03:49AM (5 children)
Linus usually criticize on what people do, in code not who they are from what I read?
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:58AM (4 children)
Who you are is reflected in your code.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:23AM (3 children)
I think I'll not fully agree with that. Coding is something I do, I'm not my code. I can change if there's a improvement to be had.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:07AM (2 children)
Just as an artist is not his/her/its art. The art can evolve and change due to outside influence and experience. Just like the artist him-/her-/itself.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:28AM (1 child)
I think the art is what the code accomplish.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:39AM
Now we're really going meta :)
What I was trying to get at is that if you get bitched out for lousy code, it's probably easy to take it personally because it's a reflection on yourself. Whether the code is bad because of inexperience, laziness or downright incompetence, in many cases the criticism will not be perceived objectively regardless of how PC it was phrased. Offense isn't just given, it also has to be taken.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @12:06PM
Let's wait and see if the prohibition against "The use of sexualized ... imagery..." includes persons neither applying sexuality image enhancers like lipstick, eyeliner, mascara, and rouge, nor wearing brassieres or cleavage-revealing tops at our next technical conference.