Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 19:44:55 -0400 From: Chad Jacob Milios <freebsd-list@nuos.org> To: FreeBSD Advocacy <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks Message-ID: <1E035CAF-99CA-4E53-930C-53CF0018B167@nuos.org> In-Reply-To: <20180714064429.36c6bc43.freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> References: <20180714064429.36c6bc43.freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jul 13, 2018, at 6:44 PM, Erich Dollansky = <freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the priority = list: >=20 > = https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dwindows-freebsd112= -8linux&num=3D1 = <https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dwindows-freebsd11= 2-8linux&num=3D1> There is NO indication of causality here. Your logic is missing or = flawed. > Focusing on software would have made FreeBSD do better. Fair =E2=80=98nuff, let=E2=80=99s do that. What is it that you=E2=80=99re = focusing on with this message or [ongoing] thread, though? > On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:28 PM, Adam <amvandemore@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com = <mailto:imp@bsdimp.com>> wrote: >=20 >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 6:20 PM Andras Farkas = <deepbluemistake@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>=20 >>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:31 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >>>> Such overly-simply CoCs have proven unworkable in the past. They = were >> OK >>> in >>>> the 90's, but we live in a different internet world today. These = are >> good >>>> guidelines and great advice, but make it hard to take action when >>>> necessary. I wish it were not so. >>>> we live in a different internet world today >>>=20 >> [Citation needed] >>=20 >>>=20 >> Direct personal experience on a conduct board, 10 years over the last = 20 >> serving on FreeBSD core team. Most of that time as core's specialist = in >> interpersonal disputes. That qualifies me to have an informed, expert >> opinion. >>=20 >> So what are your credentials? >>=20 >>=20 > I'm an expert because I say I am. What kind of conduct is that? >=20 > --=20 > Adam Adam, Andras, he just said, he=E2=80=99s got direct and pertinent = experience, specifically where (here) and for how long. Andras, I bet you=E2=80=99d like a citation, but is one =E2=80=9Cneeded=E2= =80=9D? Here you=E2=80=99re just trolling the poor sunovabidge. He=E2=80=99= s entitled to share his experiences, perspective and personal opinion = and you=E2=80=99re free to disregard it if you feel so inclined. > On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:57 PM, Ted Hatfield <ted@io-tx.com> wrote: >=20 > I had hoped that we were done with this nonsense. >=20 > Let it go already. >=20 > Ted Hatfield Wisest remark yet. > On Jul 16, 2018, at 3:24 AM, Erich Dollansky = <freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> wrote: >=20 > what kind of action can be done with the new CoC that could not have > been done with the old CoC? >=20 > Erich I think Jeff answered this before you asked: > On Jul 15, 2018, at 9:03 PM, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> = wrote: >=20 > Many past and present core members found that the existing document = was insufficient in dealing with the conflict they were being asked to = resolve. This resulted in some relatively high profile incidents that = harmed the project. Having direct experience with the problem at hand, = and having been voted into a position to deal with this, does in fact = entitle Warner to speak with some authority on the subject. >=20 > Furthermore, we polled committers and found that there was near = universal support for respectful communication and for removing people = who were unable to conduct themselves well. Core needs a document that = provides guidelines so that this process is not capricious or = surprising. >=20 > Jeff Insightful and informative. Thank you, Jeff. I think any of us who=E2=80=99= ve had any real participation in the various forums of communication = used by The Project for any significant length of time are familiar with = the often passionate and sometimes contentious nature of many talented = and creative people. When a necessary response, which may come as = drastic, is sometimes taken it=E2=80=99s only made worse if it=E2=80=99s = met with shock and surprise by the may-be brat throwing the would-be = tantrum. > On Jul 15, 2018, at 7:26 PM, Erich Dollansky = <freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> wrote: >=20 > Does anybody need more: >=20 > Keep it civil. > Be tolerant. > Remember that you are in public and that your actions determine the > public perception of the project. Do not make it personal. Do not > take it personally. >=20 > Erich You know, Erich, this is a perfectly valid question. I had the same very = same question myself, and I must say, it=E2=80=99s a mighty fine CoC you = got here. I see nothing at all wrong with yer short CoC, but see, = we=E2=80=99re white, we=E2=80=99re men. A small CoC=E2=80=99s always = seemed to work well enough for us. Ask the women though. See what they = think. Ask a darker fellow how he appreciates the utility of having the = longer, broader CoC. Core and the CoC committee did _not_ have an easy job to do! No, they = didn=E2=80=99t do it flawlessly but it seems like it=E2=80=99s so Gawt = dayum easy for some of y=E2=80=99all to sit back and complain from your = easy chair. If you actually know how to behave and conduct yourself as a = decent human being then why t.f. should the prior or current CoC have = any real bearing on your life _whatsoever_? This is not rhetorical. I am = seriously asking, please, can someone explain all this butthurt to me? I can admit, i do understand the appeal of the good ol=E2=80=99 days of = the boyz club. Colorful and loud, outright raucous discourse, i tend to = enjoy. But we are a bigger project now. Like Warner said, the 90=E2=80=99s= are over. With all the good we=E2=80=99ve achieved comes some = compromises. I=E2=80=99d rather support and protect diversity. Can anyone actually tell me why they find the long CoC so intimidating? = Honestly, who really left the project _over_the_CoC_? Pointing at our = CoC to cast blame is just simple minded and lazy. There are PLENTY of = problems and issues with the project and the software while there are = also many very good very hard working people doing all that they can to = make FreeBSD GREAT, and I think it still is. I find discussions about = those issues to be infinitely more interesting than bickering about our = CoC. Much LOVE to all of you. Oh shoot, now did I just trip over FreeBSD=E2=80=99= s massive CoC? =E2=80=94 CJ=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1E035CAF-99CA-4E53-930C-53CF0018B167>