The term don’t fix it if it ain’t broken stands for don’t try to change a working thing right ?
Overall he is correct.
The term don’t fix it if it ain’t broken stands for don’t try to change a working thing right ?
Overall he is correct.
No. WTF is that logic.
Don’t fix things that aren’t in need of fixing doesn’t mean don’t create new things that do bettet job.
I believe that this change is fixing something that doesn’t exist, hence it doesn’t need fixing.
You see it as a new and better way, i get that. But i disagree.
You are the only one, at least between you and me, calling it a ‘fix’, so that logic comes from you as you are the only one using that context. I have only called it a change.
It is a change I do believe to be for the better, as professionalism is something that has been somewhat…lacking…shall we say?
Even as introverts, professionalism is not something to be discounted. Not to say anything negative about Wendel’s intellect, but knowledge alone isn’t the reason even Linus (LTT) shuts up and pays attention when he starts talking.
In fact, as I have earlier stated, introverts by their nature tend to have a much harder time picking up on this behavior. So from that perspective it could be argued it is actually more favorable for introverts than extroverts to have a clearly defined CoC.
Is it perfect, no. But I don’t think it’s a bad first start.
But ultimately, you may not see it as a problem that needed fixing…but apparently enough people (or perhaps the right people) did to warrant a response.
I never said anything about introverts or spectrum or whatever. I won’t reiterate 3rd time what i said. It any case we’re arguing semantics now. As well as in circles.
Guess we just have to agree we disagree.
The problem isn’t the CoC itself. We can all agree that some level of conduct and courtesy is needed in all work environments. All companies, big and small, have one (or should at least). The problem is with the language being used and how it is framed. Not to mention how it’s being imposed.
Linux is no longer a hobbyist project like it was perceived all those years ago. It is getting bigger and having much more exposure, with big players now taking active interest. So yes, eventually we will need to establish a more “corporate” environment. But there is a proper way to do things.
There’s a lot of virtue signalling in that CoC…
Well that blew up…
Here’s an info dump I added to the OP, their goal is to inject politics into that community it seems. Among other things, Git Hub had already tried this.
“why is it a political document” “because its a political document”
is that what that says?
I’ve read it, it doesn’t say anything political.
Yeah i mean their nonsensical tweet.
Don’t get me started…
It’s not political, but they want to make it political. This is how they operate. We have countless examples, so there is no point in saying otherwise.
The main issue is that it attempts to control people/thoughts, and forces you to accept it if you want to be there, where it wasn’t necessary for how many years?
The author of the Covenant also doesn’t believe in meritocracy, so even if you write good code, but have bad thoughts you’re screwed, appears to be one of the many authoritarian leftists around today…
Not that the author there has any direct control over a project/forum/whatever, but that’s just some insight into the mindset of the people who want to impose their ideals onto others and exile anyone who disagrees.
_
Former blizzard dev explains
That nazi one immediately puts them in the black hole list for me. nothing irritates me more than people using nazism as a toy to push their goals, its abhorrent.
I’ll try to bring it back to the main topic though.
While there’s things in that document i’m not sure I agree with, the document is missing one crucial piece of information that is fundamental to everything else within it.
I do wonder why it was left out, if it was deliberate and if anyone tried to have it put in.
The definition of harassment is missing.
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
The corner stone of the document is that its entire purpose is to make a harassment free environment. How can that be done without defining harassment as it applies to the project or environment?
Which definition of harassment? Are they taking harassment as it applies in law? If so which law?
In my opinion, when you leave out a crucial definition from a document it is because you want the word to be ambiguous, there is no other reason to do so.
Leaving it ambiguous leaves it open to the change of the wind.
While I don’t think documents like these are inherently bad, I do think they should be specific when it is for something so important.
Is there anywhere where they discuss the document inclusion?
That’s a problem with the author, yes, but it’s not a problem with the covenant itself. The covenant does, however, allow for the removal of meritocracy if the package maintainers believe in that school of thought.
It can be, but not necessarily.
What browser do you use?
Chrome? You must think that google’s data mining and SJW leanings are good then.
Firefox? You must support Antifa.
Brave? You must like in-browser ads.
Edge? You must be a normie who just accepts defaults.
Safari? You must be an apple fanboy.
See how I can extrapolate assumptions that may or may not be true, but are almost entirely insulting to the person I’m making assumptions about?
If you’re concerned with the survival of meritocracy in Linux, just keep an eye on it. Don’t attack them for using someone’s CoC framework that is, on the whole, pretty good because you don’t agree with the maintainer’s ideology. That, in itself, is anti-meritocracy.
I’m with you on this.
I can open an issue upstream to see if we can get it defined if you think that would be worth doing.
I agree with you, and it’s dangerous to left it behind. But I think they might have avoided a “scandal” like was the FreeBSD code of conduct release, where they explicit said to avoid “virtual hugs” to colleagues.
That SJW bitch is pure cancer
Thoughts from a completely different line of work(oil industry) that require a lot more people skills than being a linux kernel dev:
It’s not hard to tell someone respectfully that their work/contribution or idea is bad.
There’s nothing wrong with having a heated argument if you can shake hands in the end and agree to disagree.
Respecting hierarchy and considering your own position is key, you shouldn’t have to be told “no” three times.
Trickle down from the top is a fact of life, leading by example sets the bar for the foot soldiers.
I think it may be worth doing. I’m somewhat concerned that there is very little change from the original source document, its essentially a copy paste which makes me wonder who much thought went into it.
Harassment is the foundation of the document though and i think a clear definition not only helps make clear the goals of the document but also helps considering that the Linux project is a multi national world wide project.
the US interpretation of harassment may not be the Chinese interpretation of harassment. Not only that, considering that the the projects leadership are responsible for defining the punishments of breaking the code of conduct. What are their interpretations of harassment?
You can’t play in someones back yard without understanding the rules.
And while there will be some universal standards that everyone will agree on, its likely some standards (undefined in this document) are currently “you can play here but if you break the rules you’ll be punished. And i’m not telling you the rules, you should just know them”
That’s not good enough in my opinion. Such a public, influential, and substantial project should hold themselves to much higher standards.
This is why people don’t define things, but not because of “virtual hugs” but because they fail to have a definition as its difficult to make them at times.
A description of a thing that’s wrong isnt a definition of a word or term.
This code of conduct gives a few examples of good and bad but fail to define harassment.
You could simply say harassment as defined by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which must meet the standards for harassment within the act for repercussions to be taken.
You could make up your own also but there are standards out there in law which could be used.
The important thing is there should be a clear consensus that everyone is aware of and knows about, otherwise its a game of “whos version of harassment”
Can’t say anything without pure speculation, but I think his daughter fell into the regressive left camp, might explain somethings that are happening here…maybe.