Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday September 26 2018, @01:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the don-asbestos-garments dept.

[Updated 2018-09-26 20:30:00 to show the CoC is already in effect. --martyb]

[Ed Note: Given Linus Torvalds' recent decision to step down as head of Linux development for a while, and news of an attempt to install a a new CoC (Code of Conduct) on Linux development, I believe it important to communicate this to our community. It does, however, offer an opportunity for more, ummm, fire, flame, and feelings than the usual stories posted here. Let's try and keep things civil and discuss the merits (or lack of same). To quote Sergeant Joe Friday "All we're interested in is the facts, ma'am."

If you are not interested in this, another story will be along before too long... just ignore this one.

As for the code of conduct itself, take a look at: code of conduct and the kernel commit.]

Eric S. Raymond speaks in regards to the Linux CoC:

From(Eric S. Raymond)
SubjectOn holy wars, and a plea for peace
DateSun, 23 Sep 2018 16:50:52 -0400 (EDT)

Most of you know that I have spent more than a quarter century analyzing the folkways of the hacker culture as a historian, ethnographer, and game theorist. That analysis has had large consequences, including a degree of business and mainstream acceptance of the open source way that was difficult to even imagine when I first presented "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" back in 1997.

I'm writing now, from all of that experience and with all that perspective, about the recent flap over the new CoC and the attempt to organize a mass withdrawal of creator permissions from the kernel.

I'm going to try to keep my personal feelings about this dispute off the table, not because I don't have any but because I think I serve us all better by speaking as neutrally as I can.

First, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.'s opt-out of the "moral rights" clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an even stronger case.

I urge that we all step back from the edge of this cliff, and I weant[sic] to suggest a basis of principle on which settlement can be negotiated.

Before I go further, let me say that I unequivocally support Linus's decision to step aside and work on cleaning up his part of the process. If for no other reason than that the man has earned a rest.

But this leaves us with a governance crisis on top of a conflict of principles. That is a difficult combination. Fortunately, there is lots of precedent about how to solve such problems in human history. We can look back on both tragic failures and epic successes and take lessons from them that apply here.

To explain those lessons, I'm going to invite everybody to think like a game theorist for a bit.

Every group of humans trying to sustain cooperation develops an ethos, set of norms. It may be written down. More usually it is a web of agreements that one has to learn by observing the behavior of others. The norms may not even be conscious; there's a famous result from experimental psychology that young children can play cooperative games without being able to articulate what their rules are...

Every group of cooperating humans has a telos, a mutually understood purpose towards which they are working (or playing). Again, this purpose may be unwritten and is not necessarily even conscious. But one thing is always true: the ethos derives from the telos, not the other way around. The goal precedes the instrument.

It is normal for the group ethos to evolve. It will get pulled in one direction or another as the goals of individuals and coalitions inside the group shift. In a well-functioning group the ethos tends to evolve to reward behaviors that achieve the telos more efficiently, and punish behaviors that retard progess towards it.

It is not normal for the group's telos - which holds the whole cooperation together and underpins the ethos - to change in a significant way. Attempts to change the telos tend to be profoundly disruptive to the group, often terminally so.

Now I want you to imagine that the group can adopt any of a set of ethoi ranked by normativeness - how much behavior they require and prohibit. If the normativeness slider is set low, the group as a whole will tolerate behavior that some people in it will consider negative and offensive. If the normativeness level is set high, many effects are less visible; contributors who chafe under restriction will defect (usually quietly) and potential contributors will be deterred from joining.

If the normativeness slider starts low and is pushed high, the consequences are much more visible; you can get internal revolt against the change from people who consider the ethos to no longer serve their interests. This is especially likely if, bundled with a change in rules of procedure, there seems to be an attempt to change the telos of the group.

What can we say about where to set the slider? In general, the most successful - most inclusive - cooperations have a minimal ethos. That is, they are just as normative as they must be to achieve the telos, *and no more so*. It's easy to see why this is. Pushing the slider too high risks internal factional strife over value conflicts. This is worse than having it set too low, where consensus is easier to maintain but you get too little control of conflict between *individuals*.

None of this is breaking news. We cooperate best when we live and let live, respecting that others may make different choices and invoking the group against bad behavior only when it disrupts cooperative success. Inclusiveness demands tolerance.

Strict ethoi are typically functional glue only for small groups at the margins of society; minority regious groups are the best-studied case. The larger and more varied your group is, the more penalty there is for trying to be too normative.

What we have now is a situation in which a subgroup within the Linux kernel's subculture threatens destructive revolt because not only do they think the slider been pushed too high in a normative direction, but because they think the CoC is an attempt to change the group's telos.

The first important thing to get is that this revolt is not really about any of the surface issues the CoC was written to address. It would be maximally unhelpful to accuse the anti-CoC people of being pro-sexism, or anti-minority, or whatever. Doing that can only inflame their sense that the group telos is being hijacked. They make it clear; they signed on to participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards, and they think that is being taken way from them.

One way to process this complaint is to assert that the CoC's new concerns are so important that the anti-CoC faction can be and should be fought to the point where they withdraw or surrender. The trouble with this way of responding is that it *is* in fact a hijacking of the group's telos - an assertion that we ought to have new terminal values replacing old ones that the objectors think they're defending.

So a really major question here is: what is the telos of this subculture? Does the new CoC express it? Have the objectors expressed it?

The question *not* to get hung up on is what any individual's choice in this matter says about their attitude towards, say, historically underepresented minorities. It is perfectly consistent to be pro-tolerance and pro-inclusion while believing *this* subculture ought to be all about producing good code without regard to who is offended by the process. Not every kind of good work has to be done everywhere. Nobody demands that social-justice causes demonstrate their ability to write C.

That last paragraph may sound like I have strayed from neutrality into making a value claim, but not really. It's just another way of saying that different groups have different teloi, and different ethoi proceeding from them. Generally speaking (that is, unless it commits actual crimes) you can only judge a group by how it fulfills its own telos, not those of others.

So we come back to two questions:

  1. What is our telos?
  2. Given our telos, do we have the most inclusive (least normative) ethos possible to achieve it?

When you have an answer to that question, you will know what we need to do about the CoC and the "killswitch" revolt.
--
                Eric S. Raymond

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 1787

LKML URL: http://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/23/212

Possibly in reference to: http://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/20/444


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by epitaxial on Wednesday September 26 2018, @02:46PM (12 children)

    by epitaxial (3165) on Wednesday September 26 2018, @02:46PM (#740213)

    Yes it's a recent development. Now that you can be a different gender daily (or possibly more frequently?). It's only a matter of time until someone lawyers up because someone else couldn't keep their mouth shut.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=2, Redundant=1, Insightful=2, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @04:11PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @04:11PM (#740280)

    Really? people have been rude, disrespectful and even trolls for millennia, but you want to blame accountability for douchiness on gender identity?

    Dealing with people in a respectful manner is pretty simple:
    1. Don't be a dick.
    2. All you need is #1.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @04:51PM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @04:51PM (#740307)

      These trolls are beyond worked up, wrll past the "they are gonna take our guns!!!" level of anxiety.

      Look on the bright side, the trolls can now use these guidelines to file complaints when they are harassed for being straight white males.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @06:08PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @06:08PM (#740350)

        I'd agree except they've already used CoCs to take over projects and start bullying people.
        If anyone has some projects they'd like to list here for this gentleman I think it might be good. I personally can't remember which ones.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:17PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:17PM (#740400)

          Kind of like license agreements every CoC is its own beast. Some may allow for abusive implementations but after re-reading the new Linux CoC I just can't get myself worked up and worried about it. I see these are very good things, it will create a better culture and any abuses such as the ones you mention are the sort of bugs you'll find in every new organizational method and we will work through those issues.

          I predict in a few years this PC freakout will settle down. Personally I look forward to some nice straight white male getting abused and being able to file complaints via the CoC, will make for a lovely story to balance out this hysteria. All prejudice sucks, but apparently working towards equality is more of a pendulum path.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:51PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:51PM (#740423)

            You don't understand the new formulation for racism: because all white males are privileged and powerful, it is impossible to discriminate or be racist against them.

            The current sociological definition of racism (and, in fact, most discrimination) only applies when institutional power (or privilege) is involved. Since White people have the most privilege in this country, it’s impossible to be racist against a white person. Or rather, "nearly impossible.” Perhaps that’s what I should have said.

            http://raptorific.tumblr.com/post/11932699900/it-is-impossible-by-definition-to-be-racist [tumblr.com]

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday September 26 2018, @06:21PM (5 children)

        by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday September 26 2018, @06:21PM (#740355) Journal

        Whether legitimate or not, their complaints will be made public, laughed at, and thrown out. So making a complaint along these lines is pointless. This is pretty obvious everywhere else you look around you. You can't have a meeting alone with a woman without being concerned that she will file one of those 5% of false claims in order to get ahead. You can't work your hardest to be the best you can be without people assuming you are doing it to put others down (I got written up by a Union for being too effective and making other workers feel bad). A meritocracy is easy, all you have to do is be great and you get your name out there. Now there is weights added to your merit to determine if your work is actually of merit. Yeah sure that code was pretty great, but people of his color have done a lot of great code, so was it really that good?

        From the other side. When everything is based on merit and you write great code as someone who is not expected to, you are seen as great and on the same level as everyone else (if you can take the bantz). If you write the came code but the assumption of your greatness is increased because you are that same person who was not expected to, it will be called into question why your work was regarded as great.

        Would you rather get to the place you are because of your abilities, regardless of who you are. Or because of who you are, regardless of your abilities?

        I don't know about this case in particular, but I have seen it elsewhere. Worked on a group project at a former employer with a team of three people, all of us of different backgrounds. We did a great job, two of the people got a ton of recognition because they were not expected to be able to do that because of their background. I was given no credit because I am an average white guy who was expected to be able to perform the task. From my perspective we all did great because we performed a great task, under the system I was in they did great work because of their background and I did not because of my background even though the work performed did not change. A system based on system is the only system that is fair. Arguments that there are barriers to getting into the merit system should be addressed, but trying to adjust the outcomes of the system should not be forcefully adjusted.

        --
        Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
        • (Score: 4, Funny) by fyngyrz on Wednesday September 26 2018, @06:49PM (2 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday September 26 2018, @06:49PM (#740383) Journal

          Now there is are weights added to your merit to determine if your work is actually of merit.

          -.1 weight applied to your overall score according to the "offensive mangling of English" Code of Conduct rule.

          Be more careful in the future, worker. We wouldn't want to have to hurt your grammar. We know where she lives.

          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @08:32PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @08:32PM (#740446)

            We wouldn't want to have to hurt your grammar. We know where she lives they live.

            -.1 weight applied to your overall score according to the "offensive assumption of pronouns" Code of Conduct rule.

            Be more careful in the future, worker. We wouldn't want to have to send you to social justice re-education camp.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:34AM

          by Sulla (5173) on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:34AM (#740551) Journal

          I guess it shows the state of the left where you get troll modded twice for
          1. Stating that everyone should be equal and barriers should be removed to entry
          2. Everyone should compete based on their ability
          3. You shouldn't judge people or give advantages based on the color of their skin
          4. Having thin skin is not a reason to repress the freedom of others

          If your own thin skin is holding you back from being all that you can be, that is your problem and not the problem of the people around you. In general people should not be jackasses, but when you are online nobody has to know that you are descended from Africans, or from India, or from China, or a Woman. I don't know the specifics of how things work in the Linux community, but if they are like other online communities then the ability to be anonymous is the absolute greatest thing possible for a society based on merit. Occasionally people will say an idea and claim that they know better because they are from X group, that is insane. The argument made stands on its own merit, and whether or not you are one group or the other should never matter.

          --
          Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Blymie on Thursday September 27 2018, @09:09AM

          by Blymie (4020) on Thursday September 27 2018, @09:09AM (#740711)

          The real problem is that this is simply another way to break down Western civilization.

          Feminists are one thing. Excellent goals, they had. Neo-feminists? That's the bad type.

          Same for civil rights activists. Both simple wanted equality, fair treatment, that sort of thing. Yet the "new breed" is confused by what the last generation did, and why.

          Each of these groups, and others, are tearing away at what social fabric holds together society.

          I'll put this another way, there are honest and dishonest politicians. Often greed is the big separator here, greed and a desire for power. Yet, that sort of personality does NOT cease to exist simply because someone is not a politician. Many group leaders, and many of the most vocal amongst these group leaders, receive funds and donations from all sorts of places. Just like the politician that doesn't care about the state of their country, or they that are betraying a trust to act against the public's interest -- some activists (not all!!) act only for their own interests.

          That is, money and power.

          On top of that, some groups receive donations. Anonymous donations. Great. Now a group doesn't need to be led by a morally corrupt person, but just a *deranged* person. And that group can be a calling ground for other deranged people... with money for advertising, travel, funding drives, and more -- all donated anonymously, such as from a foreign power via sock-puppet like bank accounts and corporate fronts.

          So, you tear down the fabric of your competitor's society. You use honest, good, innocent citizens that are naive about how the world works, and you target protest, on purpose, against the wrong people.

          In this case, you see them equating equality with "not caring if the work done is of value". Think, just think how that sort of thought process will utterly destroy the social fabric of a nation. Of a society.

          Imagine it in the physical. Imagine a massive structure with 100s of engineers, say building a huuuuge dam. Now imagine that you get yelled and screamed at, because you're leading the project, and you say that one engineer's work is sub-par, and you MUST use it, and you CAN NOT reject it, because they're .. well, whatever "special" attribute they have.

          Can you imagine? Thousands dying 10 years later, because of the flood and resulting damage? But, that's *ok*, because *feel good*?

          No, this is merely another way to destroy the fabric of Western society. Most people are dupes in movements. Take any political party, look at the main US parties. You have endless followers, that no matter what you say or do, on EITHER side, will never ever even admit that something wrong has happened. Yes, there are people that think and are thoughtful on both sides, but the VAST majority just enter the polls and vote one way or the other, endlessly.

          So many followers of any of these movements, instantly and wholly believe whatever their leaders say. Support the movement endlessly.

          The ability for foreign totalitarian/strongly controlled powers to influence democracies, is what this is all about. The US/CIA has been doing this for literally .. forever! They do these very same things to small, Central and South American countries they want to control. They use these very same tactics to overthrow even democratic countries, and instill leaders .. totalitarian leaders, that will act in their best interests.

          Now, these very same tactics are being used against the US. They have been, really, for decades -- but it all seems to be coming to the fore.

          Let's look at the US in the last decade or so:

          - Destroy the ability for the left and right to communicate on anything. Polarize as much as possible. Make conversation between the sides impossible.

          - Destroy the ability for the rich and poor, the have and have nots, to communicate. (Right now, the rich are seen as greedy assholes, not people that worked hard to accumulate wealth. I'm taking people that just live in slightly nicer houses, not billionaires here..). In Western society, the "barely wealthy" are those that have often worked very, very hard, and used their intelligence and work ethic to build a small business with say.. one store, into a business with 10 stores. They aren't Bill Gates, they aren't the Walmart clan, no -- they're those that employ local people, provide services a community needs (that's why people shop there, use their services), and do it well. But now these people are "the haves", and they only have it because "privileged".

          - Ensure that those that do real, meaningful work are discredited, disenchanted, and feel like their contribution is meaningless. Even when not for wealth. (This thread/article is an example of that -- there are MANY others.)

          There are other examples of things like this, too.

          So this, like many other things, is an attack on the "West". Because like it or not, the freedom to develop something like the Linux kernel, the idea of "information is free" is a very Western thing.

          What I have to wonder is, where is the NSA and CIA in all of this? You don't shut down the movement, but you certainly want to shut down (for example) a foreign power funneling money to a movement. To be truly democratic, you attack any source of foreign interference in your internal political and social fabric. You don't attack a group, but you do remove any source of "outside" influence on that group.

          Yet, I don't see that. And this is truly bizarre.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:50PM (#740771)

      Then why didn't they leave the fucking Code of Conduct at that, hmmmmmmmmm? Oh yeah, because it's a trash fire entryism tool and a political weapon, [youtube.com] that's why. Anyone trying to frame the CoC as "you just don't want your ability to be horrible to other people" is a flat-out liar.