On 2018-09-20 03:02, m712 wrote:
>
>
> On September 20, 2018 12:32:07 AM GMT+03:00, KatolaZ <katolaz@???> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:55:38PM +0300, m712 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On September 19, 2018 8:09:52 PM GMT+03:00, Steve Litt
>> <slitt@???> wrote:
>>>> Long observation of
>>>> people resenting CoCs is they want the right to speak cruelly to
>>>> individuals and speak cruelly about groups of people, those groups
>>>> having nothing to do with the list's core foundation (Linux sans
>>>> systemd, in our case).
>>> Sorry, Steve, that's intellectually dishonest. You're painting a
>> black-and-white picture of "if people oppose CoCs then they must want
>> to do things not allowed by the CoCs", however in all instances I have
>> encountered where the need for a CoC was disputed I have seen the exact
>> opposite. You do not need a CoC to protect people from bad words, and
>> people who are contributing nothing but insults are quickly killfiled.
>> CoCs do nothing but introduce filibustering in between contributors.
>> The previous "Code of Conflict" was entirely adequate. The creator of
>> the Contributor Covenant has written a "Post-Meritocracy Manifesto"[1]
>> which describes meritocracies as "benefit[ing] those with privilege",
>> aka social justice bullshit. The Linux kernel community /depends/ on a
>> meritocracy, and this is absurd.
>>
>> The Linux kernel community, as any coding community, is based on
>> people that do things together, share common goals and principles,
>> trust each other, and produce actual code.
>>
>> Social science is very good for discussing about the plus and minus of
>> a community, which behaviours are good or bad, which things could be
>> done in order for the community to become more like this or more like
>> that. But social science alone does not deliver code. And code is what
>> your computer needs to run. You can argue as much as you want with
>> your wifi card, or even yell at it in rage, but that won't convince it
>> to work without a proper device driver for your OS. That driver needs
>> a hacker to be written.
>>
>> I know that what I say is harsh, and that many people might feel
>> offended by that, but honestly most of the people I have heard talking
>> about CoCs and post-meritocracy so far are those who have no clue of
>> how a large (or even a small) piece of software is put together. There
>> are obviously exceptions, but are not many, unfortunately.
>>
>> The Linux kernel is available to billions of people only thanks to a
>> bunch of damn good hackers, who have collectively produced code worth
>> millions of man-months without the need of a silly CoC or of a
>> post-meritocracy manifesto. IMHO, the only "privilege" they have
>> enjoyed is to have produced something useful for a lot of
>> people. Sadly, most of us can only dream about that.
>>
>> My2Cents
>>
>> KatolaZ
>
> Thank you. This is what I was trying to convey, perhaps my lack of proficiency in the English language prevented me from doing so (plus some leftover outrage perhaps).
>

>             m712

Steve,
It seems you are being less than inclusive to those who have a differing
opinion on the merits and potential issues of the CoC.

You are in potential violation of the "insulting/derogatory comments,
and personal or political attacks" line in the CoC.

You have stated "Long observation of people resenting CoCs is they want
the right to speak cruelly to individuals and speak cruelly about groups
of people"

By implication you are saying those people are cruel or at least
undesirables based only on their opinions or resistance to the CoC not
any actual action taken or words said by those individuals.

This certainly seems personal and insulting to those who have, what I
would consider, legitimate concerns.

I would recommend you focus on one of the examples of good behavior
mentioned in the CoC: "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and
experiences"

However, I would say you are 100% correct that this is off-topic and
irrelevant.

-Regards