Return to

The Linux Kernel Adopts A Code of Conduct


I was led to this thread because people are calling this the new SJW wave…

Now people are free to mock the kernel devs for being SJWs.


What is that?
For Google, Microsoft and Facebook, it was easy to force SJW-ism top-down by blackmailing them with PR.
This is now “monetization of outrage culture” or what?


Victim buxs has been a thing for a while


Harassment is against the CoC. If you’re not harassing someone, it’s not a big deal. If you’re harassing people, then yeah it’s against the CoC whether you are doing it by calling them nazis or princesses or anything else that is intended to break them.

The code of conduct is an anti-harassment policy. It prohibits harassment. It doesn’t say “you have to be nice to people or you get kicked off the project.” It encourages professionalism and provides an means for addressing harassment, which was not being adequately discouraged (as judged by the people actually involved in the project, not a crowd of bystanders who only have what they read on the internet to go by).

There is a such a huge misunderstanding by people who apparently don’t understand what the word harassment means. The smear campaigns and witch hunts ARE HARASSMENT which is exactly what the CoC is designed to address! I can’t fathom why people are so upset.

To spell it out, the community already had a code of conflict that said:

If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable.

The fact of the matter is, the Linux developer community have the same values now as they did before. They do not tolerate abuse, threats, or harassment. The new document is designed to emphasize that fact and make it perfectly clear what the values of the community are to outsiders. Their values haven’t changed.


The code of conflict did not require strict enforcement by maintainers/contributors or else they be kicked, nor did it require people to be “inclusive” or “have empathy”, or “be nice or else” effectively.

The goal appears to be control, which is why authority to remove people from projects is given to the TAB, and why people are trying to get Ted smeared as a rape apologist and kicked off the TAB, to be replaced with someone they like I’m sure.


Oh hey, an actual communist hit list may be forming


I lost and I wasn’t even fighting.:frowning:


People say what they don’t like about the Linux coc in this post.


Vulkan just adopted it.

This is like when people didn’t like Reddit and then moved to Voat.

The Phoronix forum turned super toxic for that post BTW.


The strict enforcement is still at the discretion of the project leaders. I’d argue the only functional change is that the outside world now sees how the process works internally. This is an increase in transparency, not a change in enforcement. I suspect this increased transparency is intended to reduce the need for enforcement, because the lines that shouldn’t be crossed are now visible.

Keep in mind that enforcement doesn’t have to mean immediately blacklisting someone from kernel development. Enforcement might be just a private one-on-one with the person to get their side of a situation and letting them know what they did crossed a line so they know not to keep doing that. It’s in the CoC that enforcement shall be as determined appropriate for the particular situation.


Did I miss something? I don’t think they discuss disciplinary action against contributors publicly.


I find it a bit of a laugh that some people in this thread are hand-waving concerns away, citing that if things are looked at rationally, there is no danger of ideology creep. Furthermore, the claim is this is only going to foster a better environment for all, with so-called “minor changes” to the way things are run.

What I would like to ask the proponents is, what are you going to do when the next loggerhead arises? Nevermind the current Ted Tso debacle, I mean the next one. When it blows up on Twitter that a coder is a Trump supporter/activist, donated to the NRA, or even just said something dumb on Twitter/IRL 5+ years ago? Because it will happen.


What makes you think Twitter users have any say in Linux kernel development? This isn’t a democracy. You don’t get to vote people off the island. All that matters is how the kernel developers handle the situation, same as always. Putting that more explicitly into words in a text file doesn’t change that fact.


To expand on what’s been said about “it’s not about the size of the CoC, it’s how you use it.” A lot of projects have added a creator covenant themed CoC now, and while we do have a couple of examples of clear cut abuse that’s all we have. The more projects that add this, and then use it like adults, the more pressure there will be on problem projects to not hide behind their CoC when they use it to defame some developer for daring to have an opinion.


That’s good insight.

Could we also assume that the opposite is true as well?

The more projects that adopt this, then use it to forward their agenda or ostracise people based on opinion, the more pressure there will be on the other projects to join in?

–Devils Advocate


The same activists who got the CoC implemented into linux are now attempting to frame Ted as a rape apologist so he can be removed from the TAB, they have some power over these things and it’s very sad.

Without the CoC they have no power to do any of that.

I don’t think you can just change the license on your code and request it be removed from the project if it was GPL?


Yea it could go that way too. The only data I have to say it will go the way I’m saying is the ratio of, let’s call them “SJ developers” to “non-SJ developers.” Where an “SJ developer” is one concerned with social justice enough to go after a guy like Ted Ts’o.

I think that ratio is probably well under 10%, with projects like Linux having extra insulation because of the specific kind of knowledge required to work on it.

Where do I get my number from? Well, I kept it small so that it wouldn’t hurt while I pulled it out of my ass.


This is where the accusation against Ted comes from:

Here’s the feminists analysis of what he said:


I pointed out that she was lying and instead of defending her position she blocked me.

All ted was doing was questioning the methods and presentations in the survey, others questioned it as well, since that survey was off with it’s estimations of victims by a factor of 5-10.


I really don’t know why people risk talking about these things in a public forum. I’m pretty sure I’m an idiot for discussing the events around it under a moniker.

And I can sure see the criticism that the whole discussion made LCA less welcoming. But I’m not sure I can get from his post to “rape apologist.”