Am I the only one who thinks that the new Linux CoC is actually not bad? I think most of the ppl who are flaming about the CoC didn't even read the text. It literally says not be be an asshole and be polite to everyone. What's wrong with that? I know that man think the author has a questionable background. Even if, so what? Dump the CoC and "pull the code" BS because you don't like the author? Let the politics out of open source and get your shit together... and yes I see the irony, but this is the place for ranting :)

* I know that many think...
Sorry for typo

The problem for most people is, that they want to change the whole fucking source code, documentation terminology, and so on. Master/Slave server -> Primary/Replica. Male/Female jack -> ?/Holding, etc... Everyone's used to these terms, noone wants this to be changed.

Who is "they"? The maintainers? Only the maintainers are responsible for the interpretation of the code of conduct. And if they want to change master/save to primary/replica, I don't care, it's even technically more precise. I think most are exaggerating

Let's say I can ban anyone who is a "bad person" from improving the world and I decide what "bad person" means.
I hope you are the only one that thinks that's not bad.

I suggest reading what has been written in this rant for a more in-depth understanding of the whole thing: https://devrant.com/rants/1801076/...

Long story short, nothing is as easy as you say it is, especially not when millions of people are impacted.

@ravijojila banning someone for no reason would be against the CoC ;)

It's not for no reason, it's because he is a "bad person"

@ravijojila but it's defined and for everybody to read what makes you a "bad person". And I think it is a reasonable definition.

I'm welcoming anarchistic forms of organisations, but if this is not working then I think it needs some structure.

I mean, every grown-up should be able to treat others with respect and articulate different opinions without insulting people.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't act like grown-ups and so you need some framework to make it possible for everyone to work on a project and not just the loudest.

Here's an interesting presentation:

https://es.slideshare.net/pmjones88...

If you need a CoC(k) to force people to be more nice you failed.

Being nice to others should be natural, not enforced.
Behave like a good person and everything around you will be better.

@LFlo You've fallen for the “motte and bailey” doctrine. Who would be against a CoC which just says to be nice to one another? What kind of monster you have to be to reject it?

How can you be against a CoC that allows anyone to demand a person be removed from a project for (purposely or not) misinterpreting a personal tweet that person wrote? That's the part they conveniently omit when defending it.

The Contributor Covenant, very disingenuously, is worded in a way that's so vague and arbitrarily interpreted that it can be used to remove anyone from a project, no matter how important that person is, and gain power over a community to force a political stance on it by driving away everyone that doesn't comply.

Don't just take my word for it. Look up about the Opalgate incident.

They have stated time and time again that they want communities to be more welcoming by not welcoming people that don't share their political views. That should raise red flags everywhere.

@kenogo Simple. You scrutinize the maintainer's social media activity, find something that could be interpreted as bad behavior and enforce the CoC on him. Adopting the CoC means its rules must be enforced on anyone deemed unacceptable, and doesn't even leave all responsibility of enforcing it on the maintainer itself:

"Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership."


So, a maintainer can be stripped of his/her project given enough supporters.

Also interesting is this paragraph:

"Open and welcoming environment ... harassment-free ... regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation."

Notice how “political views” is conveniently omitted.

(Finished in next comment)

@kenogo (Continued)

Finally, the CoC didn't affect behavior outside of the project in version 1.0. The current version affect behavior in any context where a person represents a project, but doesn't specify what criteria constitutes representing a project. It seems just saying in your bio that you contribute to a project might be enough depending on how you interpret it.

@systemctl I too think this renaming is a little bit exagerated... In the other hand, CoC isn't about it. Read it :D

@ravijojila why would you have such a power ? I think that applying a CoC has to be community driven... Of course letting one person have the power to "fire" others. You are asking a good question here: how, as a community, we should handle case where someone is against the CoC ?

@ethernetzero the CoC also states as unacceptable behavior: "Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or *political* attacks".
Means you should not attack someone on a political basis.

But maybe you are right. Maybe there is room for improvement. You could clarify some statements. But usually in this case you submit a PR or a diff and ask kindly if one can clarify statement X or Y. That's how open source works. But there are many out there who are just yelling at each other (on both sides) and threatening the community with "code pull". Seriously? I mean: I don't think code pulls are legally possible, but who knows. But just making this statement and threatening the community in such a destructive way is unbelievable for me. I know not all of them are doing this. Just the fact they are some contributes who are taking this in consideration is disturbing.

@LFlo To be fair, I don't think the majority of people are against adopting any code of conduct at all. My understanding is that the general pushback focuses on the Contributor Covenant CoC specifically.

For example, the PostgreSQL project also received a request to adopt the Contributor Covenant and in the end they just decided to create their own, and in my opinion it's a way better one. You can read it here:

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/...

@urzq more important question I'm trying to raise is how to establish that someone ISN'T against coc with souch vague definitions.

If your code is shit, it needs to be brought to light. Don't expect warm fuzzies when you're trying to push garbage into the code base. People on the project that actually know what they're doing will light you up, and rightfully so. The following exchange will never happen:

"Hey I checked in my awesome changes ^_^ "
"Thank you so much for your dedication! The changes broke the entire kernel, but don't feel bad, you're just learning. Someone else will fix it!"

@segfault0xff so that gives someone the right so insult someone or use aggressive language? Just give constructive criticism. And guess what: (constructive) criticism is even embraced in the CoC. Contributes should "gracefully accept constructive criticism".

@LFlo if some mechanic fucked up your engine, would you hug him and provide constructive criticism? Likely not.

If you want politics out of open source, don't let outsiders change how people conduct their business.

@segfault0xff no I would not. Should I? Are there only the two options hugging and insulting?

@segfault0xff also the relationship between me and a mechanic is different from a open source community. When I go to a mechanic I except some service in exchange for money (which also doesn't give me the right to be rude).
When I try to build and maintain a community I try to find contributers which will stick with the community and invest time and effort to learn and build the project. If someone makes a mistake or doesn't know what she/he is doing, I try to explain why the contribution is wrong and on what topics she/he should focus more in the future (with regard to learning).

@LFlo how many projects have you worked on that had incompetent contributors?

I'm not interested in CoCs.

@kenogo Because the PostgreSQL CoC has more guarantees than the Contributor Covenant, and it's redacted from a standpoint of being civil to avoid derailing the normal operation of the project with offtopic discussions rather than from a political perspective.

Some of the things the PSQL CoC provides that the Contributor Covenant doesn't is, for example, due process for those accused of having violated the code of conduct, with a complete description of how complaints are reported and handled and ensuring privacy for both the accuser and the accused. It also covers cases of people trying to sabotage the project or another member of the community, as well as possible retaliation.

The Contributor Covenant is too vaguely written to be adopted by any serious project, and there are already cases of trying to force it on projects or outright trying to weaponize it. It's harder to do that with the PostgreSQL one.

@LFlo PRs have been sent by people and shot down by the author:

https://github.com/ContributorCoven...

Also, issues pointing out Coraline's behavior on Twitter being against her own CoC have been promptly closed by… herself.

@ethernetzero huh... ain't that convenient

@kenogo The Contributor Covenant cites examples of representation, but other interpretations could be thrown in the mix:

“Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.”

Before discussing further and reflecting on my comment history of the last few days, I feel like I owe you a clarification: I can see and understand your points as well as other people like @LFlo's in this very thread. What I try to convey is the concern about the alleged good intentions of the Contributor Covenant as opposed to the passive-aggressive way in which it's being used, and in no way am I trying to undermine yours or any other's opinions in the matter. In fact, I very much enjoy the civil discussion we've been having in these past few days.