On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:32:07 +0200
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
>

Hi KatolaZ,

Please be aware you're not responding to my observation about people
opposing CoCs (which I stand behind and don't see as "intellectually
dishonest"), but instead responding to m712's Red Herring fallacy. m712
changed the subject by discussing the specific author of the specific
CoC, in response to my observation of the most verbose anti CoC people,
an observation stated to a verbose anti CoC troll.

Then he REALLY changed the subject by bringing in the post-meritocracy
manifesto, using the tenuous thread justification that (he says and I
have no reason to disbelieve) that the author of the manifesto and new
Linux CoC are the same person. Ctrl+F search the manifesto page for my
name: You'll find I'm not a signatory to it.

For most of us, it's trivially easy to live within any of the CoCs
I've seen. If you call a person a "bonduxer" and the person
objects, don't continue using the word, and if he's at all nice about
it, apologize. Same if you use the word "bonduxer" for a group.
Do we really have to adjudicate whether the word is insulting? Someone
objects, why not use a different term or ask "what would you like to
be called in this context?". No sweat. For all of us except those who
think it's their God Given Right to use the word "bonduxer",
perhaps on Free Speech grounds.

Concerning Free Speech, consider the Free Speech clause of America's
First Amendment:

==================================================================
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, ...
==================================================================

I'd assume that in free societies, most constitutional language on
speech is similar. Note that it says CONGRESS shall make no law. Not
YOUR PROJECT shall make no law. It's perfectly legal, and consistent
with a Free Speech government, for an organization to limit speech in
the organization.

Concerning Meritocracy: I made no statement whatsoever about
Meritocracy: m712 brought that into the conversation, not I. I'll say
this about practical meritocracies, however: Every meritocracy has
limits, written or unwritten, of how bad someones behavior can get
before the person is no longer protected by superior merit. Thus the
Smoothwall project was forked to IPCop not because the head of
Smoothwall was technologically inferior, but its project leader was so
hard to deal with that the project was forked.

SUMMARY:

Conforming with almost any existing CoC is very easy, requires little
effort, abrogates your freedom very little. It doesn't interfere with
meritocracy, nor does it interfere with the writing of great
software, except during discussions about the CoC. My observation,
acquired over many years, is that those who keep on attacking CoCs want
to preserve their ability to be either thoughtless or nasty in an
offtopic way.

SteveT

Steve Litt
*** Bonduxers are causing the decline of this country! ***