On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 08:50 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > Firstly, you gave an analytical response to what was, in my view, an > emotional observation. While I agree with your analysis, it is > largely irrelevant. It is not how people *feel* about kernel > development. > > You say that the code of conflict is gone, but in fact much of it is > preserved in the code-of-conduct-interpretation. If you reflect on > the focus of the second para of that document (which I think was > directly lifted from the code-of-conflict) you will see that value > is placed squarely on the code (kernel code, not code of > conduct). The code is put forward as the thing of primary > importance. People (you, me) are only mentioned in the context of > being the authors of code that will be criticised - because (it > almost says this) we care about the code, but not about you. > > So I think it is beyond argument that the value system presented by > this paragraph is > code > people
Actually, I think this whole code vs people debate is a straw man and inherently inimical to the discussion. In neither code of conduct (old or new) is there any statement that allows one to make a value judgment of people relative to code, so the very premise you're all arguing on doesn't exist. The two separate, but related statements present in both systems are that the technical quality of the code going into the kernel is paramount and that we should try to be respectful of others in email or other interactions including code reviews. Code and people aren't opposites: you can give purely technical reviews with a laser like focus on quality and still do it respectfully. Or to put it another way: respecting code doesn't automatically mean you disrespect people, which seems to be what the '>' was implying. James
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
