I’m Sorry, but, with today’s circumstances we need someone like Linus to take the mantle and be the future of Linux.
I keep coming back to this, but it was necessary for.years, they just wanted to bury their heads in the sand. It think the wording is a little misleading and inflammatory but other wise this was sorely needed if for nothing else than to keep people on a track and quality.
As for the forcing people to accept it, are there permanent kernel maintainers, professional and paid for what they do? Well then it is just like any other job and you follow the rules of the overarching head of the work.
I get the frustration and concern completely but I cannot see this as anything but good. Maybe not in its current form but a baseline is needed.
A bit of hyperbole here. Suddenly all rules become thought police. That is the best way to make everything a jungle.
I am not fan of the Covenant CoC and definitely not a fan of the people behind it but the content of the CoC is ok. The main issue of this CoC is that the wording is a bit too overreaching and aggressive (stemming from the people that made it) but the content is fine and quite basic. Just because the people behind it are awful it does not make the actual CoC awful by default.
I would much prefer if Linux adopted a CoC like the the django one (based on Speak up and the Fedora CoC) that pretty much has the exact same content but worded much more responsibly or even sth close to the Ubuntu CoC. But many very big and great projects use this same Covenant CoC with no issue. You have projects like Jenkins, kubernetes, gitlab and the list goes on. Even though not perfect this CoC has worked ok in the wild. In the end of the day the actual implementation always relies on the quality of the community itself.
Linux needed a CoC for years. The Code of Conflict was not enough by any means. And even though this is not the best choice (and if i was a member of the contributor community i would push for a Django like CoC) its fine.
No, it doesn’t say that. “Punishment” has to do with the things you shouldn’t be doing.
SJWs are the favorite shock troops of big corporations.
Bog standard CoC that you’d see everywhere. Not sure what all this fuss is about.
Some people are blowing it out of proportion, but there are a couple valid concerns with the CoC.
What are those concerns?
Pretty much that it’s a bit vague in some concepts that it takes very seriously and that it doesn’t define all the terms used. Harassment being one of them. Most of us have a similar understanding of it, but we’ve seen it in the lounge (and elsewhere on the forum), some people don’t understand that certain actions are harassment.
Not huge concerns, by any stretch and probably shouldn’t prevent the approval of it, but they definitely seem valid to me.
Ahh makes sense now. Guess they need to be educated/provided the correct resources is all. Unless they’re being petty children about the matter, then I could see how this would get out of hand.
I think people are more up in arms because of the way CoC’s author is reacting to the whole situation.
Yea, she’s like almost giddy.
like some sort of victory has been won ?
She’s got a Twitter. I’ll find it for you.
I’m not sure you should thank him for the pain you’re about to experience.
… ‘#istandwithcoraline’ im so confused, stand with them for president of the united states?
“+Maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior
+and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to
+any instances of unacceptable behavior.”
“+Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject
+comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are
+not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any
+contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening,
+offensive, or harmful.”
And so you must follow those examples lest be punished correct? That’s why those examples are there?