Of course, the work has to be good enough to be included. But I also
think virtually everyone has some useful skills they can contribute.
I don't see anything particularly off-putting in the CoC that should
make talented developers leave, though. And I don't really see a
connection between the CoC and not doing so well on a particular
benchmark that, as others have pointed out, has little to no real world
value anyway.
On 07/18/18 00:10, Stephen Cook wrote:
My question was a direct response to another comment, which said the new
CoC did not chase away any significant contributors.
Do we want to attract people with no useful skills? I think that,
regardless of whether you are "Vulnerable" or "Oppressor", your work
should have to be good enough to be included. Nobody will want to use an
operating system written by whomever can cry the loudest. I just hope
that patches are still reviewed and they don't start committing code
based on identity politics.
I am not against people feeling safe or welcome. There are specific
complaints about this CoC that the supporters ignore. It is sad that a
group of smart people fell victim to these activists, and then shoved
the resulting trash CoC down our throats without public discourse. It is
possible to do this correctly.
-- Stephen
On 2018-07-17 10:53, CL Moonriver wrote:
Was the project going to lose any significant contributors if we didn't
protect them from *hugs*?
Probably not, but I don't think that's the right question to ask. I
think the right question to ask is does the current CoC attract new
people who want to contribute, but are perhaps intimidated because they
don't think they have the skills, are not some kind of rockstar kernel
programmer, etc? And that is one thing I think the current CoC does
pretty well. It's one of the things that attracted me to the FreeBSD
community to begin with. The CoC is "welcoming" of new members who want
to contribute but don't think they have the necessary skills to do so.
I'm a good example. I don't have the skills to contribute anything to
the kernel, drivers, etc. But I can help with documentation, and maybe
adopt an abandoned port or two that is written in Python or some other
language where needing to worry about platform differences is usually
not an issue, and when it is an issue, it's usually fairly simple to
find and fix the problem.
Contrast that with some other communities (I won't mention specific
names, but you can probably think of a few) that are basically a mess of
elitism, people being made to feel unwelcome because they aren't super
programmers, super admins, and so on. And some that even have relatively
serious problems with sexism if you look at their discussion lists. (A
couple of well known projects come to mind, but again, I won't name
anything specifically because I don't want to turn this into that kind
of discussion.)
The point is, I think it is important that the CoC make new contributors
feel welcome and that if they want to contribute, they probably can, no
matter what their background or skill level. And they don't have to
worry they are going to harassed or insulted for "not being good
enough". Again, that's one of the things that attracted me to FreeBSD to
begin with.
PostgreSQL recently adopted a reasonable, non-politicized CoC. If
someone is harassed (and it has to be real harassment not just some
vague "reinforcing systemic oppression" which I think might include
simply existing as a White Cis Male, depending on the complainant) there
is a clear procedure to deal with it, as well as safeguards against
spurious accusations. It would also be a violation to "dox" someone,
which the FreeBSD CoC does not protect against and in a way encourages:
"Deliberate "outing" of any private aspect of a person's identity
without their consent *except as necessary to protect vulnerable people
from intentional abuse*" (emphasis mine).
The FreeBSD CoC in its current form (or anything close to it) is pushing
a political agenda in itself, has little to do with its alleged goals,
and does not help the community. It is possible to protect people from
harassment, or at least remove the offenders, without defining some sets
of people as Vulnerable and another as The Oppressors.
-- Stephen
On 2018-07-15 19:43, Jeff Roberson wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
do you think that this will bring back programmers?
No one who was making significant contributions to architectual
performance problems has left or stopped their contributions. We lost a
few ports committers, at least one of which was extremely idle. There
is disagreement on exactly how to proceed among the developer community
but it is nowhere near the level you're suggesting.
I believe people of many different stripes are attempting to capitalize
on this to push their own political agenda. I hope that other readers
of this list recognzie that this is not reflective of the project as a
whole and the CoC and benchmark results have nothing to do with
eachother.
The core team is taking up the issue of what amendments may be necessary
based on developer feedback. Please give us time to make progress and
stop stirring up false controversy.
Jeff
Erich
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 12:43:10 -0600
Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote:
The plan is to do another revision, this time in public. We've
already done the first round of data collection and have data to
inform the revisions. Now that core election is done, progress can be
made.
Replying point by point to this misleading and slanted assessment is
not wothwhile.
Warner
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 12:22 PM Julian H. Stacey <j...@berklix.com>
wrote:
Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the
priority list:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-freebsd112-8linux&num=1
FreeBSD performance is really bad on some comparisons there.
Focusing on software would have made FreeBSD do better.
Yes, The new COC imposition distracted from coding:
The COC hi-jack replacement promoted by FreeBSD Foundation, was
contentious, incompetently phrased in places, imposed without
prior debate, enforced by a few commiters, wasted peoples time &
caused annoyance. Aside from the content, the process also
deserves reprimand. There were complaints to core@. Core
secretary wrote me that review was in progress. Nothing long since.
The hijacked COC needs at least core@ review.
Discussion before would have been better.
I'd at least suggest append:
"No one may edit this COC, without prior consent of core@"
As the promoting commiters abused due process, stifled debate, &
their hijacked COC foists their own "Code of Conduct Committee" &
taht will deny most appeals, a sceptical eye seems appropriate ;-)
Refs:
https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html
"This Code of Conduct is based on the example policy from the Geek
Feminism wiki."
https://web.archive.org/web/20170701000000*/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20170824113511/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html
Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, Computer Consultant, Systems Engineer, BSD Linux
Unix, Munich
Brexit Referendum stole 3.7 million votes inc. 700,000 from
British in EU. UK Goverment lies it's democratic in Article 50
paragraph 3 of letter to EU.
http://exitbrexit.uk
_______________________________________________
freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
