SJW trouble at Linux

[realibrad]

You see him as weird but his starting point post and his subsequent defense of it to you make total sense to me. The fact that you miss his point and infer points about the link being to a blog and the out to lunch implications you read into that tell me that the weirdness here is all your own. You seem almost incapable of understanding other people.

Thats because I did not get an A in Chem like you did I suppose.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thats because I did not get an A in Chem like you did I suppose.

I suspect it has more to do with not having invented a weapon of mass destruction when you were ten, but anyway....

 

[1prophet]

How To Command Respect Without Being a Jerk

Again, you Must include your own written commentary in P&N.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Josephus312]

How To Command Respect Without Being a Jerk

If you can't use your own words to make your point but have to rely on a YouTube video then I'm not going to bother.

This isn't about commanding respect though, this is about collaboration in a fairly closed environment where there isn't actually a hierarchy because anyone is a contributor on their own terms.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yeah no.

Excellent rebuttal. Oh wait, no it isn't.

Your comment on hobbies makes no sense to me as I am not in search of one more wish anybody else have or not have one.

The entire matter relates to the World's Largest FOSS Hobby Project, Linux (tm). Something which (apparently) you wish to interfere with directly or indirectly. Or maybe you just want another excuse to talk about Donald Trump.

a condition that in my personal opinion is created by lack of knowledge.

So are you calling me ignorant of the matter at hand, or ignorant in general?

You can only see what your understanding permits.

That applies to everyone, including you.

I believe that humans have potential far beyond what we see in our culture.

I believe that, in this instance, the apparent or actual potential of humans is of no concern. None of those people in the Linux community causing strife through their poor behavior have any need or desire to realize that potential. We aren't talking about deadbeat dads, homeless drug addicts, prison inmates just getting out of jail and in need of a future, or anyone else grossly in need of "turning their life around". We're talking about rude FOSS coders. They probably make enough money to survive, are reasonably well-educated, and have social problems. Making them into better people ranks pretty low on my list of Things to Do to Make Humanity Better (tm). They do rank pretty high on the list of people I'd rather just leave alone. Do I want them to become better people? Sure, why not? I could say the same for nearly anyone. But I do not wish people to take an active hand in manipulating them or forcing them to behave nicely. Either they figure it out on their own, or they don't. No big deal either way.

Anyone who does not want to deal with them can easily avoid them AND take full advantage of present and future kernel code. It's so easy, it's stupid. I'm not sure why anyone cares what the screaming Linux kernel developers are doing, since their blather is largely irrelevant anyway. You can appropriate all their code and roll it into your own kernel so long as you use the same license. No muss, no fuss.

Actually, this is now mostly a corporate project

Is that what it is now, or is that what the promoters of the Code of Conduct would like from the Linux project? Right now, corporate contributors submit code to the kernel project at the pleasure of the maintainers. They hold no special power or sway over the project, except that in some cases, major corporations do provide hardware access and documentation (or code based on those factors) that permit the kernel to function properly with modern hardware. It's pretty obvious when hardware vendors do NOT submit such code to the kernel. Getting 802.11ac hardware to work properly under Linux without some proprietary binary blob is a damned mess, let me tell you.

In any case, while it is well-understood how corporate involvement in kernel development can be beneficial, it grants them no special power over the maintainers. They don't have the right to push people around or make them act nice. They just don't. They can continue to participate in kernel development, or they can take their ball and go home.

and as people who work in corporate environments already have a code of conduct this is mainly spreading it throughout the entire line of devs.

Again, under what pretense can they even do this?

High level devs have left over the crap they have gotten (and no, I can't repeat it here since I would get banned if I used those words) spewed at them for no reason what so ever and that isn't the way to move forward.

Of course it's the way to move forward. If people left, good. People shouldn't stay with the Linux project if they don't like the people involved. That gives them the power to pursue their own interests elsewhere, free of vitriolic blather. That's the desired outcome. It makes sense, and it works for everyone. If independent kernel developers continue to drive out major supporters of the project, eventually they'll be left to do their own thing (and yell at each other while doing so) while other contributors can roll their own kernel elsewhere, merging whatever they want into their project according to the terms of the GPL v3.x. That's probably the best outcome possible.

I dare say that eventually, we'll see major Linux distros ditch "official" kernel releases, and use their own in-house kernel versions instead. I've already used alternate kernels, such as the ones I used to support AMD's kfd before it became standard. There is nothing wrong with this.

Linux is today a project that drives all android phones, the backbone of the internet and a great deal of workstations/local servers. It's not some FLOSS hobby project anymore and as professionals are engaging in the process they expect professionalism in both coding and behavior.

Then why are they still dealing with a community that still operates as a FOSS/FLOSS hobby project? If the corporate Linux groups want to seize control of their own future, they need to go their own way. The current Linux development infrastructure is not theirs to control, no matter how important it has become.

And ironically, no matter how much it may gall those who demand professional behavior from Linux kernel developers, Linux still manages to be the most important OS software on the planet, day after day, despite the poor behavior of some kernel devs. How is this possible?

As a dev I support the new CoC.

I would support it more if people went about it the same way the Rustaceans did it. While I do not necessarily like their particular community conduct rules, I have to respect that their rules have been in place since the beginning of Rust development. Nearly everyone involved in Rust signed off on the idea at the start. Anyone who wants to take an active role in interacting with the Rust community or developing the Rust programming language (or any of its tools) has to get on board with what was there from the beginning. It's all laid out pretty clearly, even if the enforcement of their community conduct rules is . . . maybe hard to understand sometimes.

The proposed kernel dev CoC should have followed the same process, and part of that process would be to start an entirely new community based on that CoC. Forcing it on an old, established development community was the wrong way to go.

How To Command Respect Without Being a Jerk

I doubt that many of the kernel maintainers really care about respect.

 

[brycejones]

Excellent rebuttal. Oh wait, no it isn't.



The entire matter relates to the World's Largest FOSS Hobby Project, Linux (tm). Something which (apparently) you wish to interfere with directly or indirectly. Or maybe you just want another excuse to talk about Donald Trump.



So are you calling me ignorant of the matter at hand, or ignorant in general?



That applies to everyone, including you.



I believe that, in this instance, the apparent or actual potential of humans is of no concern. None of those people in the Linux community causing strife through their poor behavior have any need or desire to realize that potential. We aren't talking about deadbeat dads, homeless drug addicts, prison inmates just getting out of jail and in need of a future, or anyone else grossly in need of "turning their life around". We're talking about rude FOSS coders. They probably make enough money to survive, are reasonably well-educated, and have social problems. Making them into better people ranks pretty low on my list of Things to Do to Make Humanity Better (tm). They do rank pretty high on the list of people I'd rather just leave alone. Do I want them to become better people? Sure, why not? I could say the same for nearly anyone. But I do not wish people to take an active hand in manipulating them or forcing them to behave nicely. Either they figure it out on their own, or they don't. No big deal either way.

Anyone who does not want to deal with them can easily avoid them AND take full advantage of present and future kernel code. It's so easy, it's stupid. I'm not sure why anyone cares what the screaming Linux kernel developers are doing, since their blather is largely irrelevant anyway. You can appropriate all their code and roll it into your own kernel so long as you use the same license. No muss, no fuss.



Is that what it is now, or is that what the promoters of the Code of Conduct would like from the Linux project? Right now, corporate contributors submit code to the kernel project at the pleasure of the maintainers. They hold no special power or sway over the project, except that in some cases, major corporations do provide hardware access and documentation (or code based on those factors) that permit the kernel to function properly with modern hardware. It's pretty obvious when hardware vendors do NOT submit such code to the kernel. Getting 802.11ac hardware to work properly under Linux without some proprietary binary blob is a damned mess, let me tell you.

In any case, while it is well-understood how corporate involvement in kernel development can be beneficial, it grants them no special power over the maintainers. They don't have the right to push people around or make them act nice. They just don't. They can continue to participate in kernel development, or they can take their ball and go home.



Again, under what pretense can they even do this?



Of course it's the way to move forward. If people left, good. People shouldn't stay with the Linux project if they don't like the people involved. That gives them the power to pursue their own interests elsewhere, free of vitriolic blather. That's the desired outcome. It makes sense, and it works for everyone. If independent kernel developers continue to drive out major supporters of the project, eventually they'll be left to do their own thing (and yell at each other while doing so) while other contributors can roll their own kernel elsewhere, merging whatever they want into their project according to the terms of the GPL v3.x. That's probably the best outcome possible.

I dare say that eventually, we'll see major Linux distros ditch "official" kernel releases, and use their own in-house kernel versions instead. I've already used alternate kernels, such as the ones I used to support AMD's kfd before it became standard. There is nothing wrong with this.



Then why are they still dealing with a community that still operates as a FOSS/FLOSS hobby project? If the corporate Linux groups want to seize control of their own future, they need to go their own way. The current Linux development infrastructure is not theirs to control, no matter how important it has become.

And ironically, no matter how much it may gall those who demand professional behavior from Linux kernel developers, Linux still manages to be the most important OS software on the planet, day after day, despite the poor behavior of some kernel devs. How is this possible?



I would support it more if people went about it the same way the Rustaceans did it. While I do not necessarily like their particular community conduct rules, I have to respect that their rules have been in place since the beginning of Rust development. Nearly everyone involved in Rust signed off on the idea at the start. Anyone who wants to take an active role in interacting with the Rust community or developing the Rust programming language (or any of its tools) has to get on board with what was there from the beginning. It's all laid out pretty clearly, even if the enforcement of their community conduct rules is . . . maybe hard to understand sometimes.

The proposed kernel dev CoC should have followed the same process, and part of that process would be to start an entirely new community based on that CoC. Forcing it on an old, established development community was the wrong way to go.



I doubt that many of the kernel maintainers really care about respect.

Nope....

Look you keep rehashing the same arguements so no additional response is needed. Do you have anything new to say?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Look you keep rehashing the same arguements so no additional response is needed. Do you have anything new to say?

Thank you for instructing me on when responses are or are not required.

 

[brycejones]

Thank you for instructing me on when responses are or are not required.

Your welcome, maybe developing some emotional intelligence would help you deal with a code of conduct without proclaiming its the end of Linux.

 

[fskimospy]

Your welcome, maybe developing some emotional intelligence would help you deal with a code of conduct without proclaiming its the end of Linux.

The amount of rage coming from people about a simple code that says people should behave themselves is really telling.

Cooperative communities function best when they can attract the widest array of people possible. Allowing toxic assholes to make other people miserable inhibits that. People say they don’t want to lose good coders? You already are with the toxic assholes, and with an open community they can and will be replaced.

The sense of entitlement that oozes out of this is unbelievable.

 

[Rebel_L]

Answer me honestly, have you looked at any of the documents and or links provided in the COC?

I did read through the COC website and the code of conduct and briefly browsed some of the links, its why I made my post. Based on your posts I was expecting this big anti meritocracy rant and instead all I found was some people who were looking to improve some of the flaws with the system. You do realize that if they thought meritocracy was all bad they would be advocating getting rid of it not taking a simple step like adding a code of conduct that calls for people not to asshats right?

We started with the linux code of conduct which was adopted from COC which gives links to other websites so you can acquire more background info regarding the flaws in meritocracies. You go digging several links in to find someone giving their personal opinion that maybe its not a system we should follow and say aha, see they want to abolish meritocracies, thats lots of straw. I have watched movies adapted from books where I had a hard time figuring out how they are related other than sharing the names of a few characters. You cant hold the opinions of things linked by someone as the opinions of the person who linked it unless they specifically tell you thats their opinion. Background info is background info and needs to be treated as such. I found the reading quite interesting and not conveying the tone you were trying to give to it at all.

 

[realibrad]

I did read through the COC website and the code of conduct and briefly browsed some of the links, its why I made my post. Based on your posts I was expecting this big anti meritocracy rant and instead all I found was some people who were looking to improve some of the flaws with the system. You do realize that if they thought meritocracy was all bad they would be advocating getting rid of it not taking a simple step like adding a code of conduct that calls for people not to asshats right?

We started with the linux code of conduct which was adopted from COC which gives links to other websites so you can acquire more background info regarding the flaws in meritocracies. You go digging several links in to find someone giving their personal opinion that maybe its not a system we should follow and say aha, see they want to abolish meritocracies, thats lots of straw. I have watched movies adapted from books where I had a hard time figuring out how they are related other than sharing the names of a few characters. You cant hold the opinions of things linked by someone as the opinions of the person who linked it unless they specifically tell you thats their opinion. Background info is background info and needs to be treated as such. I found the reading quite interesting and not conveying the tone you were trying to give to it at all.

First, why would you expect some big anti meritocracy rant? I never said it was a huge part of the push. What I have disagreed with is people saying this was only about stopping people from being shitty, and not about the system of meritocracy. The people that are against the new COC specifically cite that they think moving away from a meritocracy is bad, yet people are claiming that that is a guise for their real concern. You entered into this espousing the same idea, that I had built a straw man.

Clearly a motivation is to improve how people act and engage with each other. I have at no point said it was not, and further, have said it is a good thing. What I did disagree with was that the issue of meritocracy was also not part of what was being pushed for.

Your view of my position appears to be built upon nothing I have said fyi. You seem to presume that my position must be something extreme because I think there is an issue here. That presumption is the basis for your comment about a large rant, straw man, and tone.

Try this if you want to have a discussion... try and sum up what my views are, and I will do the same. See where the issues are so we do not talk past each other.

Your position.

Meritocracies are flawed because people hold internal bias that they may not even realize. That allows for marginalization to be justified which hurts everyone. The people speaking out against the change are worried that they might be pushed out for treating people badly. While the issue of judging code on its quality should be part of the goal, people are using that as a way to really attack the fundamental point of the change, which is to make a more inclusive environment which brings in more diversity and better code as well as a more enjoyable community.

Seem to be a fair summary?

 

[brycejones]

Many walls of text, so little communication.

 

[realibrad]

Many walls of text, so little communication.

And apparently unrealized hypocrisy. Your post is a great addition to this thread.

 

[Rebel_L]

Your position.

Meritocracies are flawed because people hold internal bias that they may not even realize. That allows for marginalization to be justified which hurts everyone. The people speaking out against the change are worried that they might be pushed out for treating people badly. While the issue of judging code on its quality should be part of the goal, people are using that as a way to really attack the fundamental point of the change, which is to make a more inclusive environment which brings in more diversity and better code as well as a more enjoyable community.

Seem to be a fair summary?

The most interesting and relevant thing I have read from those sites was to read about how uncivil and rude personalities tend to dominate FOSS projects. (Not having worked in the field I cant speak to the validity of this but it sounds like a plausible thing) The atmosphere which this generates is something that is a barrier to diversity, women in particular and minorities in general are in our society mostly taught that loud self promoting, vocal and agressive personalities are something they should avoid. This means that significant portion of coders will stay away from a project such as linux as the general atmosphere is not pleasant or normal to them. The Code of Conduct is meant to change the project atmosphere to be more inviting that more of those people will participate. This should increase the amount of people involved add diversity and should mean better code. This sounds like a great idea to me.

From your posts what I read your stance to be is that the COC site is made by people who want to abolish meritocracies and that getting people to adopt a code of conduct is their first step to getting that accomplished.

 

[Moonbeam]

@realibrad I have trouble following your argument. There is a debate as to what meritocracy really is. For some it is just code quality seen through one kind of technical performance filter and for others performance on a more holistic level includinespectfulness and inclusivity. When I read your rebuttal to Rebel I can’t tell which point of view you intend or if you are consistent from one iteration to the next.

Also you should be open to counter proposals as to how to have a proper discussion because of the widely held opinion I believe is frequently expressed on this forum that you have real issues in meeting standards that imply you face exceptional capacity in that area. You are in fact, it seems to me, quite well known as being difficult to get through to. If so it might be somewhat arrogant to demand the terms of the debate.

 

[realibrad]

The most interesting and relevant thing I have read from those sites was to read about how uncivil and rude personalities tend to dominate FOSS projects. (Not having worked in the field I cant speak to the validity of this but it sounds like a plausible thing) The atmosphere which this generates is something that is a barrier to diversity, women in particular and minorities in general are in our society mostly taught that loud self promoting, vocal and aggressive personalities are something they should avoid. This means that significant portion of coders will stay away from a project such as linux as the general atmosphere is not pleasant or normal to them. The Code of Conduct is meant to change the project atmosphere to be more inviting that more of those people will participate. This should increase the amount of people involved add diversity and should mean better code. This sounds like a great idea to me.

I think what you said above is all true. I want to emphasize this to help give context to this discussion.

From your posts what I read your stance to be is that the COC site is made by people who want to abolish meritocracies and that getting people to adopt a code of conduct is their first step to getting that accomplished.

I do not think that describes my position.

I think there is something wrong with the community as I said above. I think many realize this, and want it to change and think they can start by hitching their wagon to the Contributor Covenant. There are two main parts to this issue. The first is the toxic environment that keeps people away, and, prevents others from getting equal footing in the community. The 2nd part is a political view of the world that influences their perception of the issues, and influences how they will try to remedy the aforementioned.

That said, the goal of the Contributor Covenant is to try and address social issues and not just to give a framework for how to make a "workplace" more friendly. The Covenant is meant to address things like inequality due to privilege which in no way has to do with making people nicer to each other. Thus, I think framing this as one side wants to have standards to make people nicer so others are not driven away, and another side that are ass holes that want to remain ass holes is false.

Now, you came into this by saying that they were pointing out "meritocratic systems arent perfect". The point that Contributor Covenant is making about meritocracies is that some people start better off because not everyone has "access to the same resources, free time, and common life experiences to draw upon." This is saying that those that have less resources like free time cannot be judge the same as someone that has those things and can use those things to write better code. That is why they think its unfair to judge just code. I think that is misguided and wrong to do.

 

[Moonbeam]

realibrad: I think what you said above is all true. I want to emphasize this to help give context to this discussion.

I do not think that describes my position.

I think there is something wrong with the community as I said above. I think many realize this, and want it to change and think they can start by hitching their wagon to the Contributor Covenant. There are two main parts to this issue. The first is the toxic environment that keeps people away, and, prevents others from getting equal footing in the community. The 2nd part is a political view of the world that influences their perception of the issues, and influences how they will try to remedy the aforementioned.

That said, the goal of the Contributor Covenant is to try and address social issues and not just to give a framework for how to make a "workplace" more friendly. The Covenant is meant to address things like inequality due to privilege which in no way has to do with making people nicer to each other. Thus, I think framing this as one side wants to have standards to make people nicer so others are not driven away, and another side that are ass holes that want to remain ass holes is false.

M: It isn't false to frame the issue that way as it correctly part of the issue. It is false to solely frame the issue that way if you will. You will throw off people when you are not careful to separate the two issues this way as they will easily feel that that you are denying the fact of the first part of the issue along with the rest.

r: Now, you came into this by saying that they were pointing out "meritocratic systems arent perfect". The point that Contributor Covenant is making about meritocracies is that some people start better off because not everyone has "access to the same resources, free time, and common life experiences to draw upon." This is saying that those that have less resources like free time cannot be judge the same as someone that has those things and can use those things to write better code. That is why they think its unfair to judge just code. I think that is misguided and wrong to do.

M: But can't that just be saying that those who are grandfathered into the elite of Linux coders due to past more resources, free time and life experiences acquire privileged status that creates an asshole mentality they use to defend that privilege by defining the kind of code they produce as meritorious but in a limited and unrealistic sense, one that a code of behavior might help ameliorate? We are back again to what meritorious actually is. You can't make people nicer without bringing up the issue of privilege when it is privilege itself that creates assholes., right?

 

[realibrad]

...

M: But can't that just be saying that those who are grandfathered into the elite of Linux coders due to past more resources, free time and life experiences acquire privileged status that creates an asshole mentality they use to defend that privilege by defining the kind of code they produce as meritorious but in a limited and unrealistic sense, one that a code of behavior might help ameliorate? We are back again to what meritorious actually is. You can't make people nicer without bringing up the issue of privilege when it is privilege itself that creates assholes., right?

Are you saying that their behavior is cased by them starting with a gap in resources, or that they are ahead that makes them assholes?

 

[Moonbeam]

Are you saying that their behavior is cased by them starting with a gap in resources, or that they are ahead that makes them assholes?

I am applying my opinion as to what in my life I find to play out statistically. They say that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not happen to agree with that. I believe, for example, that you suffer from a very linear kind of honesty and that once you have decided what you believe the moral good to be, it would be difficult to corrupt you . If everybody has a price at least yours I think would be high. I don't think most people are as morally dedicated as you are and that most people indeed do succumb to power. Only some Hobbits can carry the ring. So what I am saying is that privilege is just another name for power and that once possessed, all justifications that defend it become sacred cows. Unconscious emotional needs lead to rationalization not honest appraisal.

You are stuck on one aspect of this moral dilemma, I believe, because you hold meritocracy in high regard but define it improperly., narrowly, linearly, literally, in your thoughts without access to heart. We are both for the good but we see the good differently, in my opinion and I like mine better. I see mine as more Catholic.

 

[realibrad]

... So what I am saying is that privilege is just another name for power and that once possessed, all justifications that defend it become sacred cows. Unconscious emotional needs lead to rationalization not honest appraisal.

Resources, time, experience = privilege.
Privilege = power.
Power ultimately corrupts.

Thus resources, time, experience = corruption. It's that right?

 

[Moonbeam]

Resources, time, experience = privilege.
Privilege = power.
Power ultimately corrupts.

Thus resources, time, experience = corruption. It's that right?

It corrupts those who are corruptible as all stereotypes usually have some validity in reality. My belief is that this isn't actually, however, an absolute. It's good enough for government work, however. You seem to want to make something hard and fast which I see as a generally valid principle. I would say that is how we differ in approach to things. It's that holistic vs linear thingi. You seem to want to lock down the rules and I am comfortable with gray.

 

[realibrad]

It corrupts those who are corruptible as all stereotypes usually have some validity in reality. My belief is that this isn't actually, however, an absolute. It's good enough for government work, however. You seem to want to make something hard and fast which I see as a generally valid principle. I would say that is how we differ in approach to things. It's that holistic vs linear thingi. You seem to want to lock down the rules and I am comfortable with gray.

I know that you realize how absurd your earlier point was. You just made the argument that people should not be better than others because it leads to corruption.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Your welcome, maybe developing some emotional intelligence would help you deal with a code of conduct without proclaiming its the end of Linux.

Many walls of text, so little communication.

How disappointing. You can do better, P&N. I mean I guess I'm not surprised by Moonie trying to take things off-topic but still . . . I waited awhile to see if there would be anything more, and really, there wasn't.

The amount of rage coming from people about a simple code that says people should behave themselves is really telling.

The absence of critical thinking here is also telling. Seriously, why can't people here ask the right questions?

Why, after all these years of the Linux FOSS community functioning as it has, does anyone want to pursue a CoC now?

How does the Linux kernel development community manage to function despite its culture of toxic behavior?

Who is pushing the CoC?

What are their underlying motives?

Do they actually have what is best for kernel development in mind?

Who benefits most from imposing a CoC on the Linux kernel development community?

Thus far, the only poster to provide any useful information to the debate is/was @Josephus312 by finally airing out what everyone pushing for the CoC wants in the first place: more-corporate behavior from the people working on kernel development. The thought is: big companies are using the kernel, and pouring lots of money into it indirectly by hiring their own kernel developers or directly by making donations. Said corporations have been knowingly funding kernel development for years despite knowing that they can't tamp down poor behavior of kernel developers operating outside of their own. So after paying that much money on kernel development, haven't they earned a little piece and quiet from the noisier and more obnoxious members of the community that they can't control directly through HR policies?

What could possibly be wrong with that? And what, if any, ulterior motives might direct those efforts?

People say they don’t want to lose good coders? You already are with the toxic assholes, and with an open community they can and will be replaced.

Kinda makes you wonder how Linux ever worked at all. It's been like this for years. How does Linux kernel development consistently yield such good code?

Also, how does the CoC make the community any more "open" than it is now?

The sense of entitlement that oozes out of this is unbelievable.

That comment is clearly misdirected. The sense of entitlement among those pushing the CoC is . . . actually it's kind of believable. Doesn't make it right though.

The most interesting and relevant thing I have read from those sites was to read about how uncivil and rude personalities tend to dominate FOSS projects.

The Linux kernel dev mailing lists are legendary. You can probably dig up other instances of poor behavior in other projects, but there aren't THAT many that reach the same level.

The atmosphere which this generates is something that is a barrier to diversity, women in particular and minorities in general are in our society mostly taught that loud self promoting, vocal and agressive personalities are something they should avoid.

I'm sorry, but that is kind of sexist/racist. Most white men that I know won't generate or tolerate that degree of invective, nor are many people of any stripe that passionate about code that they're willing to get into flame wars over it.

FOSS coders are usually dedicating free time to these projects, or are being paid a pittance from a donor platform. I find that most of them are left-leaning anarcho-communist types, with few exceptions. It's fascinating to watch a bunch of people who, in the political arena, would be anti-patriarchy and pro-leftist be attacked for apparent toxic masculinity. Few people understand (or care) about how passionate they are about their work.

This means that significant portion of coders will stay away from a project such as linux as the general atmosphere is not pleasant or normal to them.

That atmosphere isn't pleasant or normal to a lot of people. Can you explain how it functions in such a manner? Nobody seems to want to address that question.

The Code of Conduct is meant to change the project atmosphere to be more inviting that more of those people will participate.

Is that the only intention? And why exactly does anyone feel like they want more people participating? At the end of the day, nobody wants to explain that either. I mean hell, you can outright copy ALL the code the kernel dev community puts out and do your own work on it without ever having to interact with "those people". Folks do it all the time to create their own specialized kernels. Nobody really pays attention to that, or really seems to care.

This should increase the amount of people involved add diversity and should mean better code.

We have no evidence to support or reject that hypothesis. If someone were to do a major fork of the kernel project, introduce the CoC to that project's community from the get-go, and test the hypothesis, we could learn more. Instead people just want to stick the CoC on the existing toxic community and cause uproar. Everyone is blatantly ignoring the path of least resistance.

From your posts what I read your stance to be is that the COC site is made by people who want to abolish meritocracies and that getting people to adopt a code of conduct is their first step to getting that accomplished.

Many in the developer community who see no need for the CoC or who see it as an authoritarian attack on the community itself (remember, anarcho-communists don't really like rules) have tended towards the conspiratorial, assuming that "SJWs" are attacking them. I'm surprised more people haven't come to the conclusion that it's an attempt by corporate donors to exert more control over development, especially give responses such as those from @Josephus312 .

 

[brycejones]

Oh noes the womens and non whites are coming for the Linux.

 

[Vic]

The 'underlying motives' are that - in any collaborative project - the ability to work with the project team is just as much a component of merit as is the work skill itself.

So you just might be the greatest developer in the history of developing, but if you can't work nicely with others, then all that doesn't matter.