SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[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) Subject On holy wars, and a plea for peace Date Sun, 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:
- What is our telos?
- 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. RaymondThe 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
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @04:35PM (15 children)
You do realise you're arguing ad hominem?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @08:24PM (8 children)
It's not a personal attack, it's context that questions motivations. A meritocracy discriminates only against incompetence. If you've been in the workforce some time you've already seen the incompetent and malicious play the discrimination card. You must never let these shits control the frame.
None of this has anything to do with code or engineering decisions, right of the bat it's grievance mongering bullshit.
What I consider inappropriate in a professional setting is identity politics. These rules are inappropriate, they are infantilising and seek to undermine the personal agency of contributors.
How very Kafkaesque! Using the pretense of inclusion to exclude people based on mere allegations is outright sociopathic. Do not let the shits control the frame!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:03PM (7 children)
The parent post is not discussing meritocracy. It's not discussing the CoC. It's discussing the person the parent believes is pushing the agenda. Sorry. Ad hominem. = "To the person". And this is textbook.
What such rules suggest is that the personal agency of the contributor is undermined. And it should be. When that person uses their agency to engage in unprofessional behavior such as sexualized language, trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, personal attacks, harassment, and doxxing. Things a Foundation can be sued for and put out of business if it doesn't make it clear that such behaviors are unacceptable. Unless you personally have the multithousands of dollars and want to pay the legal costs of such a lawsuit yourself. Which would likely kill Linux much faster than any other method. More than anything else that could have been a convincer to Linus that he needed to mend his ways.
But aside from that, the behaviors that the CoC outlines are in fact unacceptable in a professional setting. Period. And that likely is threatening to those who engage or condone such behaviors.
Me, I hope instead Linus sees that his behavior was wrong. For decades. And now he's willing to change and see Linux change as well instead of fighting it when he's already ceded that he has behaved in hostile fashion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:26PM (6 children)
That is the context, you're removing the context. You are being intellectually dishonest. You are playing games!
The people stuffing their CoC down contributors proverbial throats object to sexualized language do they?
Bullshit!
Adults are responsible for their own behavior, this isn't a school yard.
No, they're not unacceptable in a professional setting. They're unacceptable in "polite" settings where walking on eggshells around anti-social behavior is expected. Only those who feel threatened by frank, open discussion seek to close it down.
Calling out bad code, stupid ideas and shitty behavior is wrong is it?
Hostile towards bad code, stupid ideas, breakage and general fuckwittery! The proof of the pudding is in the eating, explain how Linux was failing under this style of leadership.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:47AM (5 children)
My oh my... Struck a nerve, did I? Let's see....
1) Sexualized language being prohibited is in the CoC. You're welcome to go look it up. So yep.
2) On a nonprofit being able to be sued for a volunteer for Title VII harassment... All the following is IANAL. It's not settled yet seems in the winds. Have fun reading. [nonprofitissues.com] That case settled and parts were overturned, but cracked open the notion that volunteers may open Title VII claims even if they are not paid. If you want more reading [pbpatl.org] on how nonprofit organizations may be liable for the acts of their volunteers. But let's just note that if you don't think a project Foundation can get hit by a lawsuit for the actions of a benevolent dictator for life.... well... I'm sure you'll see sooner or later.
3) If you meant instead that such behaviors as those I outlined are socially acceptable... yeah. Good luck with that.
4) No, adults are not solely responsible for their own behavior when a larger organization condones that behavior by not intervening. See ANY number of lawsuits which don't go after the individual harassing but the organization which blatantly allows such harassments to occur without intervention after complaining. Have fun reading part II [eeoc.gov].
5) Find me a professional setting where a court has said such behaviors - as a matter of routine business and not isolated slights or incidents - is an acceptable procedure. I await with baited breath but I won't hold it.
6) Telling people that a situation isn't a dick-sucking contest, or advising them to shut the fuck up, or suggesting "please just kill yourself now," however hyperbolic or tongue-in-cheek, is NOT acceptable behavior. No. And I suspect you well know that and are intentionally being obtuse. And no - calling out bad ideas and code does not make up for that... that only requires logic. Which is easy.
7) No. You first explain how such behaviors are EVER acceptable. You tell me how abusing someone is justified. Then maybe I'll think about answering your concerns. Because if you can't see abuse when it is in front of your nose you won't understand the answers anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @11:53AM (4 children)
So you agree those behind the CoC are using "sexualized language" in the form of sexual innuendo and have effectively volunteered themselves for sanction under the very rules they seek to impose on others?
Why would a foundation be hit with a lawsuit because the guy who started the project calls someone out on their bullshit? 1A expressly prohibits congress from enacting any such law and if you're implying any other behavior, that is not opinion but misrepresentation and legally actionable defamation. At the very least it is a personal attack which would see you metaphorically sodomized by the CoC you so clearly love. See how it works yet?
If you're making the case it's not socially acceptable to call a CoC a CoC (which you've done) then you've already fallen afoul of your own rules. See how it works yet?
Nonsense, non-intervention in interpersonal politics does not and cannot imply condoning the behavior of parties involved.
Why would a court be ruling on non-actionable social behavior?
Absolutely is acceptable professional behavior when someone is trying it on. Don't like it, don't submit shitty code or waste peoples time with your nonsense.
No you! [wiktionary.org] You tell me how doing a Kay Sievers, refusing to fix your breakage and attempting to project blame elsewhere doesn't deserve a strongly worded reprimand. I want you to explain why being impolite or insulting when reprimanding an individual behaving like that is not "professional" but the bad behavior itself somehow is.
Effective people are disagreeable and don't put up with bullshit, deal with it because nobody sane gives a fuck if you or anybody else is offended!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:22PM (3 children)
Good luck, bud. You're a liability waiting to happen.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:13PM (2 children)
Personal attack, great to see you living up to the standards you would impose on others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @05:14PM (1 child)
No, but explaining why isn't worthwhile. Like I said, good luck.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @05:49PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 26 2018, @09:23PM (5 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:05PM (4 children)
So you aren't talking about the CoC itself, or about the policies, but about her. Thanks for the confirmation.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:39PM
The comment occurred in the context of discussion about the CoC and was speculation on motivation. If you don't like the messenger or the critique of the identity politics pushed by those behind these CoC's, here's a transgender psychopath spelling out the same thing. [psychogendered.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:53AM (2 children)
Is being as stupid as you are painful?
No, that's not ad hominem either, it's just an insult.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:17AM (1 child)
I'm sorry I made you desperate enough that you had to stoop to insult. And yep, it is ad hominem since now you're trying to conlude on a point about my intelligence instead of what I actually said. You are arguing the arguer and not the argument. Fail.
And my point is that this entire subthread from the grandparent "sane meritocracy proponent" to your explicitness is discussing the merits of people. Not of the arguments involved. Discussing the "relevant attributes of the relevant person" is already off track even if you didn't initiate it.
But I'll bow out now as my point has been made, whether you can comprehend that or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28 2018, @12:44AM
Conclusion of idiocy confirmed.