Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:45:25 -0500 From: CL Moonriver <clmoonriver@equinedreams.art> To: Stephen Cook <sclists@gmail.com>, freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks Message-ID: <b5e31d79-61e9-edab-0511-1026bd247335@equinedreams.art> In-Reply-To: <459ff5de-d866-4eb3-30e7-f16a7d327b3e@gmail.com> References: <20180714064429.36c6bc43.freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> <201807151821.w6FILUXj094865@fire.js.berklix.net> <CANCZdfp5%2BkGpmFcJOFX%2BTsQ_WrAQvUMLWkHTQwaS=StkC-j0Qg@mail.gmail.com> <20180716074006.5d152bb0.freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> <alpine.BSF.2.21.999.1807151338350.2934@desktop> <559dd5ec-43f9-457b-33c7-ae13a255aca0@gmail.com> <9c7e493a-62ef-2b69-a64f-436d6ab391ce@equinedreams.art> <459ff5de-d866-4eb3-30e7-f16a7d327b3e@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Of course, the work has to be good enough to be included. But I also think virtually everyone has some useful skills they can contribute. I don't see anything particularly off-putting in the CoC that should make talented developers leave, though. And I don't really see a connection between the CoC and not doing so well on a particular benchmark that, as others have pointed out, has little to no real world value anyway. On 07/18/18 00:10, Stephen Cook wrote: > My question was a direct response to another comment, which said the new > CoC did not chase away any significant contributors. > > Do we want to attract people with no useful skills? I think that, > regardless of whether you are "Vulnerable" or "Oppressor", your work > should have to be good enough to be included. Nobody will want to use an > operating system written by whomever can cry the loudest. I just hope > that patches are still reviewed and they don't start committing code > based on identity politics. > > I am not against people feeling safe or welcome. There are specific > complaints about this CoC that the supporters ignore. It is sad that a > group of smart people fell victim to these activists, and then shoved > the resulting trash CoC down our throats without public discourse. It is > possible to do this correctly. > > > -- Stephen > > > > On 2018-07-17 10:53, CL Moonriver wrote: >>> Was the project going to lose any significant contributors if we didn't >>> protect them from *hugs*? >> Probably not, but I don't think that's the right question to ask. I >> think the right question to ask is does the current CoC attract new >> people who want to contribute, but are perhaps intimidated because they >> don't think they have the skills, are not some kind of rockstar kernel >> programmer, etc? And that is one thing I think the current CoC does >> pretty well. It's one of the things that attracted me to the FreeBSD >> community to begin with. The CoC is "welcoming" of new members who want >> to contribute but don't think they have the necessary skills to do so. >> I'm a good example. I don't have the skills to contribute anything to >> the kernel, drivers, etc. But I can help with documentation, and maybe >> adopt an abandoned port or two that is written in Python or some other >> language where needing to worry about platform differences is usually >> not an issue, and when it is an issue, it's usually fairly simple to >> find and fix the problem. >> >> Contrast that with some other communities (I won't mention specific >> names, but you can probably think of a few) that are basically a mess of >> elitism, people being made to feel unwelcome because they aren't super >> programmers, super admins, and so on. And some that even have relatively >> serious problems with sexism if you look at their discussion lists. (A >> couple of well known projects come to mind, but again, I won't name >> anything specifically because I don't want to turn this into that kind >> of discussion.) >> >> The point is, I think it is important that the CoC make new contributors >> feel welcome and that if they want to contribute, they probably can, no >> matter what their background or skill level. And they don't have to >> worry they are going to harassed or insulted for "not being good >> enough". Again, that's one of the things that attracted me to FreeBSD to >> begin with. >> >>> PostgreSQL recently adopted a reasonable, non-politicized CoC. If >>> someone is harassed (and it has to be real harassment not just some >>> vague "reinforcing systemic oppression" which I think might include >>> simply existing as a White Cis Male, depending on the complainant) there >>> is a clear procedure to deal with it, as well as safeguards against >>> spurious accusations. It would also be a violation to "dox" someone, >>> which the FreeBSD CoC does not protect against and in a way encourages: >>> "Deliberate "outing" of any private aspect of a person's identity >>> without their consent *except as necessary to protect vulnerable people >>> from intentional abuse*" (emphasis mine). >>> >>> The FreeBSD CoC in its current form (or anything close to it) is pushing >>> a political agenda in itself, has little to do with its alleged goals, >>> and does not help the community. It is possible to protect people from >>> harassment, or at least remove the offenders, without defining some sets >>> of people as Vulnerable and another as The Oppressors. >>> >>> >>> -- Stephen >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2018-07-15 19:43, Jeff Roberson wrote: >>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Erich Dollansky wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> do you think that this will bring back programmers? >>>> No one who was making significant contributions to architectual >>>> performance problems has left or stopped their contributions. We lost a >>>> few ports committers, at least one of which was extremely idle. There >>>> is disagreement on exactly how to proceed among the developer community >>>> but it is nowhere near the level you're suggesting. >>>> >>>> I believe people of many different stripes are attempting to capitalize >>>> on this to push their own political agenda. I hope that other readers >>>> of this list recognzie that this is not reflective of the project as a >>>> whole and the CoC and benchmark results have nothing to do with >>>> eachother. >>>> >>>> The core team is taking up the issue of what amendments may be necessary >>>> based on developer feedback. Please give us time to make progress and >>>> stop stirring up false controversy. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>>> Erich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 12:43:10 -0600 >>>>> Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The plan is to do another revision, this time in public. We've >>>>>> already done the first round of data collection and have data to >>>>>> inform the revisions. Now that core election is done, progress can be >>>>>> made. >>>>>> >>>>>> Replying point by point to this misleading and slanted assessment is >>>>>> not wothwhile. >>>>>> >>>>>> Warner >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 12:22 PM Julian H. Stacey <jhs@berklix.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Erich Dollansky wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the >>>>>>>> priority list: >>>>>>> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-freebsd112-8linux&num=1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FreeBSD performance is really bad on some comparisons there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Focusing on software would have made FreeBSD do better. >>>>>>> Yes, The new COC imposition distracted from coding: >>>>>>> The COC hi-jack replacement promoted by FreeBSD Foundation, was >>>>>>> contentious, incompetently phrased in places, imposed without >>>>>>> prior debate, enforced by a few commiters, wasted peoples time & >>>>>>> caused annoyance. Aside from the content, the process also >>>>>>> deserves reprimand. There were complaints to core@. Core >>>>>>> secretary wrote me that review was in progress. Nothing long since. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The hijacked COC needs at least core@ review. >>>>>>> Discussion before would have been better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd at least suggest append: >>>>>>> "No one may edit this COC, without prior consent of core@" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As the promoting commiters abused due process, stifled debate, & >>>>>>> their hijacked COC foists their own "Code of Conduct Committee" & >>>>>>> taht will deny most appeals, a sceptical eye seems appropriate ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Refs: >>>>>>> https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html >>>>>>> "This Code of Conduct is based on the example policy from the Geek >>>>>>> Feminism wiki." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20170701000000*/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20170824113511/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Julian >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Julian Stacey, Computer Consultant, Systems Engineer, BSD Linux >>>>>>> Unix, Munich >>>>>>> Brexit Referendum stole 3.7 million votes inc. 700,000 from >>>>>>> British in EU. UK Goverment lies it's democratic in Article 50 >>>>>>> paragraph 3 of letter to EU. >>>>>>> http://exitbrexit.uk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list >>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>>> "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list >>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>> "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b5e31d79-61e9-edab-0511-1026bd247335>