Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 17:42:09 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Erich Dollansky <freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> Cc: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com>, freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Core Team <core@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks Message-ID: <CANCZdfrJAFs7xAJe%2BU03Xu0h9AK_HCzHiyN1%2BkE_k1oiALMSxA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20180716074006.5d152bb0.freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Which ones left, exactly? Warner On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Erich Dollansky < freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> wrote: > Hi, > > do you think that this will bring back programmers? > > 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 > > > > > > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfrJAFs7xAJe%2BU03Xu0h9AK_HCzHiyN1%2BkE_k1oiALMSxA>