Sharp: Closing a door

Well, there is tradition and there is stupidity. I was working for some time with Eugene Rivers of the Azusa Christian Community in Boston, Ma. (Google him, he is certainly not shy to speak up his mind), who is very careful to talk about himself as a black man. I had a very nice chat with him about it, and he was adamant that "black" is the right word, because all issues of racism are about the color of his skin, nobody cares where is ancestors came from (besides, my another friend, who was Kenya had a long and passionate fight with somebody from the Black Boston neighborhood arguing who of them is the true African-American ;)).

Encouraged by Mr. Rivers I always use the word "black" and if anybody has a problem (and that happens very rarely; I guess most people who disagree with the word ascribe it to my English as a second language) then I explain myself. If you were censored just because of the B* word, then the community is probably not worthy to be participate in it.

I don't think you can really compare lists geared towards new or irregular users (where people don't know each other, don't have their pet feuds, etc), with a development list like lkml. Don't get me wrong - I think postgres has some great resources in such lists and e.g. the IRC channel. I just don't see it being comparable.

Those employees where a tiny minority, but that doesn't really help in the beautiful new world of social media outrage.

Are you wearing a pair of trousers? Or maybe using a smartphone / PC? Do you happen to know the suffering that went into that shiny piece of technology / cloth? Did you when you were deciding to buy it?
Far for me saying that every choice has the same ethical implications (on the contrary), but addressing someone as psychopath/sociopath might be a step too far.

There's only one Linux kernel, and its impact on the world is hard to overstate. A loss of code quality to make a few people feel better would be an enormous loss to the world.

Few people are impacted if the feelings of some random developer are hurt, but a very large number benefit if the product is good. In the end, that code may live a decade or longer, and benefit literally billions over its time span, whereas such personal feelings come and go and largely are irrelevant in comparison. This problem is, I think, in similar category to the ethics of making one person suffer more so that million more people can be a bit happier on average -- from an utilitarian point of view even a minor improvement in the lives of the multitude outweigh even large displeasure heaped on a single person.

So anyway, I feel this is a bit tangential to the discussion, but I do think that the code is way more important than the people because of how much larger impact it has, and how many more lives it affects.

"mutually beneficial arrangements" are the basis of all human interactions.

Seriously, why would I spend some of my free time writing copyleft software if I didn't derive some sort of benefit from it? Even if I only gain a sense of self-satisfaction, it's still a benefit.

Personally, I'm aligned with Donald Becker's attitude -- when asked why he "gave away" many ethernet drivers "for free", his response was along the lines of "I wrote a bunch of drivers, but got an entire operating system in return. I came out ahead." (If someone can come up with the exact quote, I'd appreciate it..)

Gender is far more than "plumbing between legs" and is an important aspect of said diversity. I wouldn't call the current group extremely diverse in the absence of it.

There are many ways to measure diversity. People coming from different countries is one way. Ethnicity is another way. Gender a third. Sexual orientation is another. But also, personality types, culture, etc. The current team is a lot of old white guys. Not 100%, but a lot. Just look at any photo of the kernel dev conferences.

The kernel is supposed to be an open team, where anyone who care write good code is welcome. But it's clear that they must not be as open as they seem, or else their population would be more diverse than it is. And one way they can help is to stop being abusive to people who are trying to help out.

Unfortunately you can't really measure the former, so instead we get quotas enforcing the latter.

(BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with you)

All too often the veneer of professionalism is used to hide the crap underneath. So yes, Linus is spot on the money with that.

But to then use that as an excuse for not being professional? That's just one almighty unprofessional cop-out!

As was said - "Caesar's wife must not only BE above suspicion, she must be SEEN to be above suspicion". The *veneer* of professionalism is worse than useless, you must *be* professional.

Cheers,
Wol

It's not as though a convincing answer were difficult to provide. It'll be at the minimum a hyperlink, for crying out loud; copy and paste from the browser's URL bar, basic post-1984 GUI skills required. Surely some activist or another will have written the argument out in full on some wiki or another, by now? It's been two years already.

This suggests that the evidence doesn't exist, and that the current re-heating of the "depose that awful fire-breathing Torvalds" campaign has an even greater portion of hot air to reason for complaint than the previous. If this is true, then it's sad that all they can muster are some bargain-basement distortions, in themselves debunkable with a brief trawl through the LKML archives.[0] However it's (slightly) disturbing to see various tech media swallow and regurgitate the provided narrative hook-line-and-sinker: these are questions which they could've asked as well (and it'd be nice to quote something properly cut-and-dried, right?), were it not for their fear of seeming heretic to the pitchforks-and-torches of Twitter.

I argue that the preceding is indeed the case. My evidence is that all was quiet on that front until this latest pair of ragequits; and that therefore all that's actually going on is the raging, and quitting, of a shrill but well-connected minority.

[0] like that "dicksucking contest" one where it's clearly seen advantageous[1] to point to "blue language"[2] over its justification, namely that the justification for merging was a variation of "security interest trumps all", and that the submitter had been previously accused of "doubling down on fear". But who's going to justify a good moral conclusion, these days?
[1] to an incredibly minute degree[2]
[2] what's this anyway, pre-school?

When our family meetings (4 siblings) started to include newly gained partners/inlaws, they tended to be very on edge since they thought we were going to crank out the knives any minute. We were habitually calling each other the sort of things we called each other when growing up.

It was a very stressful environment for the newcomers and "that's just the way we talk" did not really make it all that much more tolerable. So we had to adapt.

In the case of LKML we are talking about a globally published discussion group with people from a much more diverse background than our extended family. It seems sort of obvious that this kind of common sense for leading a public discussion would apply even more here.

Presuming that she needs special/gentle treatment because she's female is definitely sexist. Giving her special/gentle treatment because she asks for it is being polite.

insults are not always obvious in the word choice either.

see what "bless your heart" can mean when voiced by a southern gentlewoman.

Personally, I much prefer the open and frank discussions of LKML to the politely voiced backbiting I've seen in other places (including inside companies). In my opinion, the LKML approach is far less damaging in the long run.

And yes, I have been on the receiving end of Linus snapping.

The connecting thread is a sort of radical-honesty / tough-love idea, that by sufficient amounts of transparency, "honest competition", argument and conflict, one will arrive at a good/just/true/ideal outcome. That freedom to speak one's mind is the #1 most important priority in all circumstances, and that any suggestion to the contrary -- that one speak carefully, choose words in a way that's aware of consequences, consider other people's feelings, etc. -- is equivalent to being rounded up and sent to a prison camp by the thought police. That it obscures truth and harms progress.

What actually happens when this weird social-darwinist "virtue through conflict" norm governs a group is that weaker and more vulnerable people feel too hurt, exhausted and attacked to participate, and even those who have the energy to participate waste a lot of it in defensive status-arguments over non-issues, and the meanest, loudest, most persistent or merely most verbose people eventually come to dominate discourse. It produces very distorted goods, very approximate truths, very non-ideal outcomes.

I'm writing this as an honest attempt to answer the question. This is the only response I'm going to post. I've discussed this sort of thing with you enough in the past to be wary, but it's been a while and maybe, just maybe, this time it'll be heard and not turn into a sealioning session where you demand evidence and try to argue me out of it. This is the impression I have. I've been in the community 20 years. I stay on the edges because of this. If you want to not believe it, it'll be better for you to just chalk it up to me having a morbid and defeatist personality than engaging in further argument.

It is just unfortunate that it is spoiled by an irrational and unjustified accusation of extreme and deliberate incompetence.

Had Linus, on proof-reading before posting, simply deleted the line about "stringing random characters
together until it compiles" it would have done nothing to reduce the effectiveness of the email, and much to reduce the possibility of it causing harm.

I understand that Linus believes that the passion he displays is an important part of his communication style, and he may well be correct. There is a very simple rule that allows you to maintain emotional passion, but avoid (or substantially reduce) the risk of harm:

Make "I" statements, not "you" statements.

"I can't believe I still get patches which add new warnings"

This is only one line in an otherwise very productive email. But it is unarguably attacking "people" (and by implication one or two specific people) rather than attacking the code. And "attack code, not people" seems to be an informal code-of-conduct that is largely agreed too.

> BTW I think CoC's are Marxist "right-think" tools of censorship...

I'm a little surprised that you are agreeing to use the same language as the rest of us - I'm sure it restricts your ability to think freely....
FWIW, I think CoC's are useful tool for unambiguous communication of group norms. It is intrinsic in the human condition that we sacrifice individual freedom to benefit from group support. In situations where body language cannot communicate/mediate those norms, a CoC can help.

I kept thinking about this ... partly because I wasn't really happy with my flippant response (sorry), partly because seeing "Marxist" and "right" in the same sentence seems odd, but mostly because I need something to think about as I cycle around the bay.

I guess your reference to "Marxist" draws a parallel with the contrast between a controlled economy and a free market. Having a Code of Conduct is a bit like a controlled economy - you are only allow to do that which is within the rules. You, I presume, would prefer a more free-market approach where people can say what they like but must suffer the consequences.

While the free-market has a lot of strengths, it has requirements that are not always met - particularly various freedoms and transparencies. There are some edge cases where it doesn't work at all, such as fly-by-night confidence tricksters and monopolies. Most (all?) free markets still have regulation to try to avoid the worst excesses of these.

In the kernel community, a senior maintainer - and particularly Linus - has an effective monopoly. The result is that market forces don't really work ... or they work by people leaving the community and going to work in some other project which isn't healthy for the kernel community.

So people suggest the Marxist controlled economy of a Code of Conduct. Is that the only way?

One idea I came across a while ago that applies to leadership teams is "Ask for forgiveness, not permission". The idea is that if all the team members keep having to ask permission to do things, nothing much gets done. If instead they are given freedom to follow their own ideas, with the understanding that forgiveness can be negotiated if things go wrong, then the net result is much more positive.

Applying that to the kernel community, I imagine the community as a whole being the source of permission or forgiveness, and the individual kernel maintainers (from Linus out toward the fringes) being the team members who might mess up occasionally and so might need permission in advance, or forgiveness after the fact.

A CoC promotes the "You need permission first" approach and maybe that it a good reason to reject it (in the context of a smallish community of maintainers - it may be more appropriate else where).

So how would the "ask for forgiveness" approach apply? It would mean that team members who (whether through carelessness or malice) harm the community (or part of the community) would need to acknowledge the harm and seek forgiveness, and the community should be ready to forgive.

A lot of the infractions that are mentioned in these discussions are from years ago. This suggests the community is not eager to forgive. But then there has been little or no acknowledgement of harm (not even "I don't see how what I said was hurtful, but I can see that you are hurt, and I'm sorry for that hurt whatever its cause") or requests for forgiveness.

Are we, as a community, capable of compassion? Capable of acknowledging we may be complicit in some hurt? Capable of seeking and providing forgiveness? Or do we drive away all the people with those abilities?

Add 'desperate'? In the past six months the Atom editor community grew faster than the stewards could keep up. I'd guess that the leaders felt like they needed to do something and do it fast. Their first choice blew up in their face (IMO rightfully so), but the second one seems pretty harmless.

Maybe this falls under 'confused.'

In general, I agree: CoCs end up getting gamed by trolls, encouraging SJWs, and causing way WAY too much useless discussion. But it's a very real problem that they're trying to solve, and they're among the very few tools that project leaders can turn to. If you have a workable alternative, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested.