From owner-freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Sun Jul 15 18:22:08 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FFE1049D3A for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 18:22:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from land.berklix.org (land.berklix.org [144.76.10.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "land.berklix.org", Issuer "land.berklix.org" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A827E91D6C; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 18:22:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from mart.js.berklix.net (pD9FA3756.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.250.55.86]) (authenticated bits=0) by land.berklix.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w6FILs91056038 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 15 Jul 2018 18:21:58 GMT (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (fire.js.berklix.net [192.168.91.41]) by mart.js.berklix.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id w6FILmOJ007832; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 20:21:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fire.js.berklix.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w6FILUXj094865; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 20:21:42 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Message-Id: <201807151821.w6FILUXj094865@fire.js.berklix.net> To: Erich Dollansky cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org, core@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks From: "Julian H. Stacey" Organization: http://berklix.eu BSD Unix Linux Consultants, Munich Germany User-agent: EXMH on FreeBSD http://berklix.eu/free/ X-From: http://www.berklix.eu/~jhs/ In-reply-to: Your message "Sat, 14 Jul 2018 06:44:29 +0800." <20180714064429.36c6bc43.freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 20:21:30 +0200 X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 18:22:08 -0000 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