
Code, conflict, and conduct - tux1968
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/765108/f1a80a6d6a6ff0f4/
======
chroma
> One of the strongest criticisms against the old code of conflict is that it
> did not enumerate the types of behavior that are unwelcome. The new one
> cannot be criticized on that account.

Except that the list contains rules that are so general as to be completely
subjective. The last rule forbids, "Other conduct which could reasonably be
considered inappropriate in a professional setting."

The problem with such general rules is that you get selective enforcement.
Node.js has the same code of conduct, and it has been used to try to evict Rod
Vagg from the technical committee[1] for tweeting a link to a Quillette
article on freedom of speech[2]. Rod's tweet got him in hot water, but one of
his peers had plenty of blatantly sexist tweets and received no reports for
CoC violations.[3]

1\.
[https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/165](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/165)

2\. [https://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-
sp...](https://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/)

3\. Such as
[https://twitter.com/maybekatz/status/900414216888139776](https://twitter.com/maybekatz/status/900414216888139776)
"Men are fragile, often incompetent babies with no sense of humor, and I like
reminding them of their inferiority."

~~~
lucisferre
> has been used to try to evict Rod Vagg

Isn't the key distinction here the word `try`? He was not actually removed. In
order to criticize the enforcement of a CoC doesn't that require an example of
some actual enforcement?

~~~
malvosenior
How much energy went into _not_ having him get evicted? The CoCs invite witch
hunts and time wasting.

~~~
moreoutput
Indeed, now everyone can contribute to the kernel.

~~~
toomuchtodo
This makes the assumption this delivers more value to the kernel code base; to
be proven.

~~~
moreoutput
Sorry, I meant for that to be sarcastic.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Sorry, I didn’t pick up on it.

------
patrickmay
I find the original Code of Conflict
([https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b0bc65729070b9cbdbb53ff042984a3c545a0e34))
to be more concise, more direct, and more applicable to kernel development. I
don't see that the new CoC adds anything of value to it.

~~~
Paul-ish
One qualitative difference is where that code of conduct puts the
responsibility.

The old one spends more time telling people not to be sensitive, but okay if
your feeling are hurt here's what you do, and maybe something will happen. Oh
yeah, and I guess don't be a jerk.

The new code of conduct puts makes it clear to everyone it is their
responsibility not to be a bad actor. The responsibility is on YOU to be
civil, and if you fail to you will be the one dealing with the consequences.

------
beat
Kudos to Linus Torvalds for recognizing he has a behavior problem and taking
active steps to be a better leader and a better person. It's tremendously
difficult to acknowledge shortcomings and failures in such a public way -
especially when he could fall back on his accomplishments, authority, and fan
base for support, and not do anything about it or even admit he has a problem.

------
baud147258
One problem I find with the CoC is the grey area, which are not defined, but
left to the appreciation of the enforcer, like 'Other conduct which could
reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting', which would
vary from country to country and 'Representation of a project may be further
defined and clarified by project maintainers' regarding representation of the
project in a public space. With this, an enforcer may easily trump charge
against any contributor.

~~~
skybrian
I think you are right that in the end, the project leaders' interpretation
determines what the rules mean. But this isn't different from before. A
community's customs are complicated and can't entirely be captured in any
reasonable set of rules.

------
davidmr
While I get that this discussion is taking place in the context of contentious
CoC debates in other projects, what I don't understand is why this is a big
deal in the Linux case.

Yes, people have been complaining about Linus' occasionally unambiguously
abusive behavior for a long time, this genuinely seems like Linus had a bad
few days, was pulled aside by some subset of the maintainers, and came to the
conclusion that he should make some changes to his behavior and to the
community of the project he controls.

I didn't see any threats or endless contentious debate derailing the project,
so I'm genuinely struggling to understand why people are upset about this. If
his previous behavior was acceptable, surely his new behavior will be
acceptable as well?

~~~
beat
I don't think anyone is expecting his "new behavior" to be worse. I think he
pretty clearly gets that the way he was behaving before was wrong, and that he
needs some help and guidance in order to deal with that. And the new CoC is
part of that... it's there to help him as well as others, and he understands
that.

Unfortunately, the very concept of codes of conduct sets off a lot of
political anger, mostly among the very people who really, desperately need a
code of conduct applied to them.

------
lawnchair_larry
CoC activism is such an unnecessary distraction.

~~~
sgift
The people who suffer under the behavior called out in CoCs tend to disagree.
Can you give a reason why they are wrong and you are right?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Not OP, but suffering is a sliding scale (sidenote: some suffering is good, it
teaches you how to be a better human; think public speaking). You shouldn't be
abused or attacked when interacting in a public project, of course, but you
also don't have a right to not be offended or having your feelings not hurt.
My personal sentiment is that CoCs have been weaponized (in the name of
inclusion and protection) when it suits certain supporters of said CoCs to
eject members of a collaboration they take issue with.

TL;DR All things in moderation.

~~~
theossuary
Can you show an example or two of such weaponization? I've never come across
one.

And even if it was weaponized, wouldn't that be the fault of the maintainers
judging the situation? You saying it's the CoC's fault is like blaming a gun
in a murder.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Coraline subscribes to a specific kind of liberal politics that requires
everyone to speak and act according to specific rules (not say/do other
things). The way they push the CoC's is they apply to _all_ mediums a person
uses instead of just the project. The language being used by her and some here
is that it's about stopping suffering and protecting minorities. Millions of
minority members disagree with them by supporting civil, free speech. Those
would be censored, too. They don't really care about anything but enforcing
conformance with their views. And they need generally-worded rules with like-
minded people in control of moderation to accomplish that.

So, in the Opal thread, a maintainer disagreed with trans peoples' claimed
identity... a common belief of tens of millions of people who support
biological view... in a comment on Twitter (not the project itself). Coraline
and a crowd of similarly-thinking people stormed into the project demanding
the maintainer be removed for the political statement plus adoption of a CoC.

[https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941](https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941)

These people, who didn't contribute anything to the project, wanted a major
contributor removed. Their attacks got more and more aggressive with both
Coraline and another associate eventually setting the project rep up to look
like he or she supports child rapists. They get down to name calling and
talking about "burning bridges" in the end. A defender rightly asks what
bridges they're talking about since most FOSS and business developers aren't
radical, political activists like them. The whole thread shows how
ideological, controlling, and vicious those kind of people are.

So, I fight against these Codes of Conduct on any forum they're presented on
since they're designed to be a tool of political subversion by radical,
leftist activists. They always mislead people, too, just highlighting the
worst stuff that we might all agree should be blocked. Once CoC is in place
and they're in control, they begin censoring all the little things we don't
agree on which violate their beliefs. Instead of all that crap, I just push
for rules where conversations stay on topic, we stay civil just to be nice, no
personal attacks, and people are judged on their contributions. Open-minded
moderators, too, that don't filter most people based on activist, minority's
views.

EDIT: You can actually see this in action right now. malvosenior just linked
to specific attempts to enforce political conformity by the author of
Contributor Convenent who authored it to do exactly that. The comment is
already grey at this moment. Some of the kinds of people it describes are
apparently trying to make it go away so you don't see what they do. While
we're at it, Slate Star Codex has an excellent article about their
misdirections and weaponization of words:

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-
word...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-
words/)

~~~
theossuary
The "biological view" reminds me of twenty years ago when gay people were
considered mentally ill. I can only hope the next generation doesn't have to
put up with this kind of bigotry. Bigotry born out of ignorance and an
unwillingness to learn or empathize. You may not realize the damage it causes,
the increased suicide risk, but I'm all too aware.

What I don't understand about Opal though, is "meh" obviously doesn't respect
gender identity, so why would he adopt a CoC that specifically says his
project does?! Coraline just seems to be calling out the hypocrisy of agreeing
to one thing and then doing something else.

Read some of this guy's other tweets, he obviously has no idea what he's
talking about "I still fail to see how that kind of invasive surgery on kids
can b cherished." It's ludicrous, the age old "But think of the children!"

We probably agree more than this comment would lead you to believe. I don't
understand why we can't just be nice to each other. Why you can just refrain
from going on Twitter and calling an entire group of people (a protected group
of people according to your own CoC) delusional. Why can't we all just get
along?

~~~
lawnchair_larry
But it’s not bigotry to believe that there are 2 genders.

~~~
theossuary
This is like saying there are only two types of people, those who are
aggressive and those who are passive (Alphas and betas). It completely misses
the fact that most (all?) things in nature lie on a spectrum, just like
gender.

Some people are masculine, some are effeminate. There are effeminate men, and
masculine women. There are biological males who see themselves as women
socially, or physiologically; and the same is true of some biological females.

At the end of the day, it has no impact on you how others express themselves,
so who cares? It reminds me of this: [http://blog.angry-
dad.com/2015/06/psychiatrists-and-hair-dry...](http://blog.angry-
dad.com/2015/06/psychiatrists-and-hair-dryer-incident.html)

If calling a somebody "she", and allowing her to do with her body what she
wants, improves their quality of life significantly, who cares? Who are you to
stand in the way of them making their life worth living?

What really surprised me though are the people on HN who normally pride
themselves on having informed opinions, talking about this without even
reading the wiki page on it -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity)

~~~
lawnchair_larry
No, it isn’t like saying that.

I don’t know why you are making a case for calling somebody a he or she in
accordance with their preference or suggesting I’m getting in the way of
anything. That is not inconsistent with the belief that there are 2 genders,
and I did not say I have a problem with respecting anyone’s preference to be
called one or the other. I didn’t even say I personally believe that there are
2 genders. I simply said that believing there are 2 genders is not bigotry.

------
malvosenior
> _But the purpose of such a code is not to threaten anybody; indeed, it is
> the opposite. It is a statement that we all have the right to be who we are
> and participate in the community as equals without having to contend with
> bullying, abuse, and worse._

The creator of the CoC _does_ regularly threaten and bully people though
(Opal, Matz...). The double standard is one of the issues I have with putting
a CoC in place. When the slightest mistake is punished for some people, while
others are free to spew vitriol, it seems like we have a real problem.

I'm sad this got adopted into the kernel and is now likely to be pushed
elsewhere.

~~~
shadowmint
> That said, the chances are that what will emerge from the dust will be
> something that looks like the same kernel community that has achieved so
> much in the last 27 years. Only hopefully it will be a bit friendlier, a bit
> more diverse, and much stronger. This could indeed be one of those
> inflection points mentioned by Torvalds in his announcement; the kernel has
> always emerged from those episodes stronger than ever. It is hard to see any
> reasons why this time should be different.

Is the message to take away here, not some alt-agenda anti-CoC message.

Just please, for one moment, consider that this isn’t the end of roman
imperialism. Its just a general, welcome, already in progress, change towards
more professional conduct.

~~~
zzzcpan
But it's not. It's a power grab and like any power grab it is welcomed by
ideological and other kinds of supporters, but not by others. Take diversity
for example. What does it have to do with professional conduct? Nothing, of
course, it's a purely ideological thing. Why is it there and talked about?

~~~
codetrotter
> Take diversity for example. What does it have to do with professional
> conduct?

If someone is acting racist towards others for example, or displaying sexist
attitudes, then that will absolutely hurt diversity because the people at the
receiving end will not want to stick around.

~~~
repolfx
Has the Linux kernel project ever had a real problem with that? Linus is not
racist or sexist, and nobody is saying he is. Just that he loses his temper
and yells at people when he shouldn't.

It appears that Linus' temper problem has been used to slip in "more diverse
and stronger" to something apparently unrelated to diversity. This is the sort
of thing that gives what should be trivial and uncontroversial (A code of
conduct) a terrible reputation for being the first sign of entryism by
extremists who try to destroy communities from the inside.

The kernel doesn't need a CoC. All it needs is for Linus to say he's going to
chill out a bit and for others to hold him to it. But now he's been
convinced/pressured/bullied into adopting this deeply ideological document,
it's probably only a matter of time before the kernel community is twisting
itself into a pulp.

~~~
jonathankoren
An abusive atmosphere attracts people who also engage in abusive behavior, and
drives away that simply don’t want be abused. This hurts diversity and
recruitment.

------
seany
So sad to see big projects fall to this kind of political activism.

------
forgottenpass
Edit: This might be one of those cases where I need to explicitly say I agree
with the following statement before giving pushback on the thing it defends.
Things we strive for should be their best possible version, even if
criticizing the current from means giving trolls and opposition ammunition.

>But the purpose of such a code is not to threaten anybody; indeed, it is the
opposite.

The fact that this is regularly and explicitly clarified indicates the
original document is poorly drafted.

For the sake of avoiding the obvious tangents, lets presuppose the best
possible interpretation of the original code. Even in that case, no amount of
blaming the people that made the clarification necessary (by - for example -
saying that they're uncharitably reading the original) makes the code better
drafted.

~~~
wccrawford
>The fact that this is regularly and explicitly clarified indicates the
original document is poorly drafted.

Would you say the same about the US constitution? It was designed to be
updated and changed, rather than be written in stone. To you, is that the same
as saying that it's "poorly drafted" and they knew it?

To most people, I think they feel that's a sign that they were wise enough to
know that they couldn't think of everything, and that the document would have
to change over time.

~~~
repolfx
Is that a valid analogy?

The US Constitution tries not to be vague, and is extremely clear about its
aims. Being updatable is not the same as having a generic "... and anything
else that we might consider problematic" clause in it. And the Constitution
comes with an infrastructure that is constantly trying to clarify what it
means when applied, not a perfect infrastructure for sure, but at least judges
and the Supremes understand that their issue is to clarify interpretation and
not simply make judgements about individuals on an ad-hoc basis.

In other words, nobody argues that the Constitution is dangerous and designed
to nail particular groups to the wall, because the document itself is clear
proof that such a statement would be false.

The CoC that has caused so much drama in other projects needs this kind of
"don't worry it won't be abused" disclaimers, largely because the authors
didn't actually try to pin themselves down (they didn't want to). It has
deliberately vague clauses and the classic "... and anything else
inappropriate" tacked on the end, which renders the document meaningless. In
addition it is routinely used to attack certain groups but not others. These
problems could have been avoided by better drafting, but one suspects it would
then not have met the goals of the drafters.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The US Constitution tries not to be vague

No, it doesn't. I mean, it tries not to be vague on the points on which a very
specific decision was reached, but it equally is deliberately vague on other
points.

> Being updatable is not the same as having a generic "... and anything else
> that we might consider problematic" clause in it.

On the other hand, it does, for instance, have the Elastic Clause.

> In other words, nobody argues that the Constitution is dangerous and
> designed to nail particular groups to the wall

Yes, they regularly do (with “persons of African descent” as the most frequent
group so identified, though “voting citizens of states with a lesser
propensity to disenfranchise other residents of the same state” is another
sometimes raised), _especially_ for the original text (though even the current
text is argued to have only incompletely eradicated that design.)

> because the document itself is clear proof that such a statement would be
> false.

No, especially in the case of the original text, it's pretty clear proof that
the statement is _true_.

~~~
repolfx
Thanks, I hadn't heard of the elastic clause before.

I was only referring to the latest version of the text. I know it was racist
in the past. But I am not a constitutional scholar, indeed.

------
forgottenpass
I want what's best for Linux and Linus.

It would be presumptuous if I said I knew exactly what that was.

I hope we can all give them the space they need to figure it out.

