Message-ID: <0ece1f04-0f09-c9a5-d67e-2201406e86c2@mailbox.org>
Date:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 19:51:14 +0200
From:   Rainer Fiebig <jrf@...lbox.org>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        t@...nk.org, NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Mishi Choudhary <mishi@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct:
 Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document

Theodore Y. Ts'o schrieb:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 04:22:54PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote:
>>
>> And whether that CoC does come with a political agenda or is just being
>> *perceived* so, is irrelevant: the perception *is* the reality. And by 
>> embracing this CoC, Linux is now being perceived as also supporting the agenda 
>> that comes with it. But perhaps that was intended?
>>
>> In my view you now have a new, probably even bigger problem: namely that by
>> adopting *this* CoC and by unyieldingly clinging to it, you have alienated 
>> many, if not the majority of loyal Linux-users/supporters.
> 
> Citation Needed: What's your *proof* the majority of Linux
> users/supports have been alienated?  Many people have actually been
> quite supportive of the CoC.
> 
Ah, come on. Proof? Do you have any hard data to underpin your assertion of
"many"?

That it *may* be the majority is the impression I got from the many
discussions that I have seen, I haven't counted the pro- and con-comments.

But I've found a little poll at "Pro-Linux", small sample, no way
representative but accessible only for registered users.[1]

The question was: "The new Code of Conduct: Good or bad for Linux?"

- Brings Linux sympathies and support:	11%
- Costs linux sympathies and support: 	57%
- Will have no impact:			32%
- Nothing of this, but:			 0%

I wouldn't call this "proof" but a worrisome indication nevertheless,
especially if you consider the name of the site.

> And perception is a funny thing.  I have no doubt that there are
> people who will claim that some CoC's that might more be acceptable to
> you would be "useless" or "means nothing".  (Note how simply removing
> three lines that troubled ***many*** Maintainers caused Josh to
> complain that it ruined the CoC).  And there are others for whom the
> Contributor's Convenant automatically seems to mean kangaroo courts
> and harsh punishments with no accountability for minor issues.  I
> suspect that both you *and* Josh are unhappy, in opposite directions,
> might be a hint that we've mostly gotten things right.
> 

I find Josh's position rather extreme - for him it seems to be "All or nothing".

On the other hand, I've already made a proposal that is not too far from what
you have now - without the political sting. Doesn't mean you should use it.

So personally, I would be content already if you modified the first sentence
in the way that has been suggested by others here several times.
Less would be more.

> Another example of this is that zero-day testing bot changed its
> message in order to be more welcoming to newcomers.  ("Thank you for
> the patch! Yet something to improve...".)  At the Maintainer's Summit,
> someone from Germany pointed out that in European and especially
> German cultures, being ultra polite is often a signal that the person
> is considered stupid/incompetent, and he actually viewed it the change
> in the testing bot as making it be *less* welcoming, not *more*.  Not
> that he cared, because he has a thick skin and after all, it's only a
> 'bot --- but in his view he thought it was quite funny that the change
> was welcomed by some as being an improvement when he viewed it
> completely the other way 'round.
> 

Perhaps not *less* welcoming but yes, you might get the impression that this
bot wants to take you on a ride. :)

> Ultimately, we are a world-wide effort, and it's really hard to
> predict or control how people from different cultures will perceive an
> e-mail or some document.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't *try*, and
> there may very well be times when someone will file a complaint for
> what is perceived to be a Code of Conduct which is really a
> misunderstanding due to a cultural mismatch.  (And *obviously* that's
> not a CoC violation either, despite some people trying to spread FUD
> by making the case that it would be.)
> 
>> In my view, the Linux-CoC stands for exactly that sort of extreme "Political 
>> Correctness" that is infesting our societies and has proven its destructive 
>> nature in more than enough instances. For some examples see [1][2][3][4][5].   
>>
>> To me it feels more and more like the dark times of witch-hunts are back or 
>> when it was politically in-correct to say that the earth revolves around the 
>> sun. In those days offenders like Galilei were at least offered the choice 
>> between recanting and the funeral-pile. Today you may recant but you get 
>> publicly burnt anyway.
> 
> Yeah, and that's precisely the FUD that I'm talking about.  I
> understand that is your view.  Let's see if it's actually true.  I

FUD? What happened to those guys and other people is not fiction but reality.
And if a Nobel-laureate can lose his job and even leaves his country because
of a harmless joke which was quoted completely out of context, it's time to be
concerned and alarmed. There's something getting out of hand, imo.

I would have expected Linux to resist this and not invite it.

> haven't seen any witch trials or burnings in the GoLang community,
> which also uses the Contributor hConvenant as their CoC.  Can you be
> open-minded enough to accept the fact that you might be wrong?  And
> are you prepared to change your views if we don't see Maintainers
> getting "impeached" or otherwise burned at the stake in the next year
> or so?

I think I am. But are you open-minded enough to entertain the idea that
introducing *this* CoC *this* way might have been a ghastly mistake?

> And on the flip side, if we continue to have newcomers saying that
> they are feeling more welcomed, I'm hoping that Josh is also open
> minded to understand that the changes the we made didn't completely
> destroy the whole point of the CoC.
> 

Not so long ago I was a newcomer myself. And submitting the patch, discussing
and improving it was a constructive and motivating experience - *no* CoC needed.

What happened in the last few weeks was just the opposite.

We'll see how this pans out.

Thanks and regards!


Rainer Fiebig


---
[1]
https://www.pro-linux.de/umfragen/2/454/der-neue-code-of-conduct-gut-oder-schlecht-f%C3%BCr-linux.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists