Return to

The Linux Kernel Adopts A Code of Conduct


I don’t see anything wrong with the original CoC.

In terms of the new one I would make it way more concise.


Our Pledge

In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as
contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and
our community a harassment-free experience for everyone.

I don’t see the point of the rest of the other verbiage which is encompassed by ‘everyone’.


Makeing it more concise and having more concrete definitions would undermine the purpose of the coc. The author has said as much pretty explicitly. It’s purpose is to descriminate. ( Can see GitHub issues for one example of this)


She seems nice.


Let me show you who got the CoC into Linux:


You probably weren’t the first person to point that out to her. You probably got blocked for not doing the background research to realize as much. If you want a rebuttal it’s probably out there already.

Or maybe not, I don’t really care to figure out if that’s true or not, just trying to make a point.


Their goal was to eliminate ambiguity in the original document. It was not explicit, it assumed everyone agreed on the same implicit boundaries, which they of course do not.


That goal is entirely useless though, there’s no reason to add so many words to a code of conduct and make it so it must be enforeced by maintainers and onto devs.

I’ve no idea why those people would have signed off on the new CoC.

Here’s an excellent code of conduct as an example.


This has been explained several times now in the thread. Whatever Twitter disputes beforehand probably HAVE NOT included accusations involving rape. Now, SUDDENLY, just HAPPENING to coincide with this new CoC debacle, they have. Before, no accusations. After, accusations. THAT ALONE is worrying. The group of people that are MORE LIKELY to use these tactics erroneously, are both the sort that people DO NOT WANT involved in the project, and the sort that potentially going to be attracted to the project.

I think we can all agree that we do not want to fire up our browsers, our mobiles, or our tablets, to check what hot new drama is flooding the Linux development world that day. Who got accused of misconduct? Who’s a nazi? Who voted for Trump? Who sent out nudes in 2001 and touched somebody’s thigh that one time?!
Ridiculous? Look at video games. Look at comic books. Look at conventions. Look at the business world in general. Films. TV. Art. Everywhere you look, there’s some scandal or spat or blow up happening. Nobody wants that for Linux. People are worried that it’s coming to this sphere now too. The handwaving and the dismissal of concerns over “a few words” is extremely frustrating, because people are already tired of this. They want it to go away and get back to work. And for the most part that will probably happen, until someone somewhere decides to trot out the Handbook of Drama and begin again.

I don’t think I’m going to be looking at this thread any more. I’ve made all the points I wanted, and obviously it’s the minority who’re concerned. I just use Linux as a hobby and have no intention of getting involved with any of this. If the powers that be are okay with this thing, that’s cool. I’m not convinced it’s not going to be a complete disaster, though.


The hate spewing and false accusations based on some rules nobody spoke out against when they could will only get worse over time.
Sad to see Linux getting hit by it too. (Maybe avoid social media next time?)


Oh man that’s gold.

Also highlights a weakness in the kernel under its current license.

Let’s say i’m… “competitor A”.

I pay “developer B” say, $1m to revoke his license for say, the IO subsystem or the scheduler.

Oops… fallout would be epic.


i saw someone say somewhere linux C o Conduct should simply be “don’t insert malicious code.”

i’m going to break the new CoC down. to show why it’s a terribly worded document ripe for abuse.

"+* Using welcoming and inclusive language
+* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
+* Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
+* Focusing on what is best for the community
+* Showing empathy towards other community members
+Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
+* The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or

+* Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
+* Public or private harassment
+* Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
address, without explicit permission
+* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
professional setting"

  1. using welcoming and inclusive language. what is welcoming and inclusive language? what happens if i don’t go out of my way to be overly friendly and babying to someone who doesn’t like me?

  2. being respectful of differing viewpoints. same as 1. what counts as being respectful? does it mean never saying you disagree with someone on something in spite of it being better to sometimes inform people that you agree? does it mean you give leeway to people with bad code simply because they have certain views? this very well could destroy a meritocracy which produces the best product for every user regardless of their views and experiences.

  3. gracefully accepting constructive criticism. sounds great but who’s opinion of constructive? are certain individuals now required to essentially fix code for people, then write them a tutorial showing them how to fix their own code specifically so the work involved gets more than doubled?
    might sound crazy but less mature people in the art world often freak the heck out even with constructive criticism claiming certain things aren’t helpful and even hateful. if it’s not helpful then it’s not constructive rather than just critical.

  4. focusing on what is best for the community. who gets to decide what’s best? is always choosing the best code best? or is picking worse code from someone of some sort minority group best? some people think meritocracy is toxic. others think judging a person’s code by skin color or sexuality rather than pure merit of the code is toxic.

  5. showing empathy towards other community members. same as number 1 isn’t it? if i don’t go out of my way to baby and coddle someone who doesn’t like me rather than just treating them like everyone else does it count as being empathetic to them? am i supposed to pretend i care about things i don’t care about simply to show empathy? if someone needs constructive criticism but they’ve got a fragile ego is it empathetic or overly harsh to give them criticism?

all in all the simple reading of the “do this” portion seems harmless until you think about it. it’s vastly opinion based with no clear line drawn. to a reasonable person it seems okay. the problem is that certain groups of people can be very unreasonable.

on to the “don’t do this” side

  1. The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances. who gets to say if it’s sexualized?
    just the wording insinuates that anything that has been used somewhat for innuendo is off limits. does calling well written code sexy break the rules?
    if someone claims you were overzealously trying to help them because they were female even though you don’t give a crap and assume everyone on the internet is male or a male pretending to be female and as such you are just trying to be welcoming, inclusive, and showing some empathy are you in violation of this or are you in line with those parts of the “do this” portion?

  2. Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks.
    what counts as an attack or insulting? do they realize how many people get called trolls simply for disagreeing these days? some people take disagreement as a personal attack. in a world filled with microaggressions it’s very easy to accidentally say something that isn’t supposed to be insulting but is said to be.
    certainly being a douche isn’t a good quality but there’s a difference many people may not see between being a douche and simply not being friendly to people who aren’t your friends. after all this combined with the “be empathetic” bit can be used to “demonstrate” that you’re in actuality hostile towards others because you weren’t overly friendly or as friendly as you were with others you’ve interacted with for a while and somewhat enjoy interacting with.

  3. Public or private harassment.
    you now have to eventually agree with things you disagree with or else your string of constant disagreements and constructive criticism of poor code is harassment and simply because you don’t like said person. especially true if you voiced your opinion that isn’t popular with a certain demographic somewhere else regardless as to if you had this specific individual in mind or not or even knew they were part of that demographic.

  4. Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
    address, without explicit permission.
    doxxing is bad. that’s true enough.
    also be careful who you call by name. even if it’s a friend someone unrelated may report you for it.
    don’t share the emails of people who may be relevant to contact.

  5. Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
    professional setting.
    what sort of profession? construction workers use foul language all the time and they’re considered professionals. not considering them professional is insulting and derogatory towards construction workers. this is so vague it can be used as a catch all most likely in the exact opposite way i just did. what’s inappropriate in a “professional” setting changes with every professional setting even in a single profession. some people may consider decorating your cubicle with a bit of personality and things you like unprofessional… especially when it’s things they don’t like.

i think this side of things is like the other side okay if you’re dealing with all reasonable people. again though, there are certain groups of people who are not reasonable. they do what they can to instate vague opinion based crap like this specifically to give themselves more power over people they don’t agree with to oust opposition to their opinions and views.

this document has little means to make things better overall and quite a bit of power to make things worse. mature people are unlikely to to use this against anyone but any accident they make if they’re being targeted for whatever reason (likely simply because they’re not a perceived member of a certain group or they are perceived to be a member of some other group) is going to be used against them. it will slowly weed out the mature reasonable members of the group who can reasonably and fairly treat people they disagree with and give more power to the people who abuse these vague rules in order to gain power in a certain place. once they gain more power they use it to force out anyone they disagree with for any reason.

i’ve got quite a bit of experience dealing with SJWs. my sister is one of them. things she might happily take as a joke one day she will suddenly react horribly to on another. it’s like running through a mine field. you never know what will or won’t set them off and the slightest drop of a hat in the wrong direction makes you the worst person on the planet who should be ashamed to exist.
it’s why SJWs often eat their own and these very standard SJW rules are also why so many people hate SJWs.
the rules are paraded as a means to make things better but they never do. they only ever get abused as a way to force out certain people or groups while giving power to other groups… usually groups who are far less likely to treat people they disagree with equally. groups who promote worse options over better options presented by someone they don’t like.
they may be trying to make things better but they only make things worse and drag down anything they sink their claws into slowly eroding it over time.
it is 100% a self destructive ideology of intolerance telling you it’s all in the name of tolerance and empathy.


So it’s like the whole NFL “what’s a catch” rule and the “what’s a tackle” rule.


just looked them up 'cause i’m not much of a sports fan.
yea… entirely dependent on finding and keeping good refs so the game isn’t rigged.

the problem here is that the more mature side is going to always be the one being pressured to give things up here and there slowly tipping the rulings more and more in favor of SJWs who don’t know how to live and let live.


Political correctness is an assault on free speech. Free speech is the foundational pillar which the great western societies are formed. Mess with free speech you mess with everything that is good about western societies. Free speech must always be an absolute.


I can’t agree more, but that argument has no place here, in a private organization.

The Linux Kernel is not a platform for free speech.


Im assuming a private operating foundation has the same argument.


Think what you like, but this is correct. The Linux kernel project can impose the rules they want, even if those rules are political. The only exception maybe rules which target a protected class.


People who are unable to feel empathy should be a protected class no?


There’s definitely an argument to be made there, but not to the detriment of the rest of society.

Elderly being a protected class doesn’t harm society in any measurable way.


Instead of tying yourselves in knots worrying and speculating on things you couldn’t possibly know, why not just wait until Linus comes back next month?