That's not the Contributor Covenant or the Linux Code of Conduct. Keep digging that hole deeper.
Where you are losing me is that the Code of Conduct linked in your first post is not the Contributor Covenant. Which are you wishing to discuss: the Code of Conduct or the Contributor Covenant?Contributor Covenant: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
It's a manifesto created by the person that created the Covenant.That's not the Contributor Covenant or the Linux Code of Conduct. Keep digging that hole deeper.
It's a manifesto created by the person that created the Covenant.
It literally just says "but they havent done so YET".He DogDick, did you ever write any code for the Linux kernel ? Did it get included ?
BTW, it's fake news.
https://www.itwire.com/open-sauce/84659-fake-news-no-linux-devs-are-threatening-to-pull-code.html
It's a manifesto created by the person that created the Covenant.
But it's not like that, is it?"Don't Be A Dick" policy in general is good for code.
Personally, as long as the Contributor Covenant isn't discussed with regard to Linux, I don't even need to consider it. It's just the Linux CoC that should be of importance.
A linux head contributor being called a rape apologist has NOTHING to do with the "calling me out on my incompetence is rape" published by the person who accused him.But it's not the Covenant.
And given that you've just been caught parroting fake news... you might just want to stop talking.
A linux head contributor being called a rape apologist has NOTHING to do with the "calling me out on my incompetence is rape" published by the person who accused him.
I quoted her directly. SHE made anti-tech statements, not me. Do you want that person anywhere near the Linux dev team? You shouldnt ignore what she has done elsewhere if she is now involved with a similar situation.You lied.
If you're gonna quote the article, and use the word "literally", then quote the article correctly.It literally just says "but they havent done so YET".
I quoted her directly. SHE made anti-tech statements, not me. Do you want that person anywhere near the Linux dev team? You shouldnt ignore what she has done elsewhere if she is now involved with a similar situation.
And i mean, jesus, just what a fucking horrible, insane person that is.
Paywall: https://lwn.net/Articles/766699/
More https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-answers-5-questions-in-bbc-letter/
Linked from that page https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-happens-if-you-try-to-take-your-code-out-of-linux/
People on Reddit have explained why a meritocracy collaborating with someone who condemns meritocracies is bad: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLo...ats_going_on_with_this_talk_of_sjws_wrecking/
The tone and meaning are pretty darn spot on.If you're gonna quote the article, and use the word "literally", then quote the article correctly.
"There was no mention of anyone having yet done so."
The tone and meaning of that sentence is different from "they haven't done so YET".
BTW, you didn't answer my question.
Did you ever write code ?
Was it used in production ?
Did you ever write code for the Linux kernel ?
Did that code ever got incorporated into the kernel ?
Except that what's really happening here is that people who can't write decent code are whining and complaining to continue to keep out those who can, but who have been to this point excluded for reasons having nothing to do with their merit.Good luck DigDog, hopefully those that can write decent code will win against the SJW that can't do crap except whine and complain.
-The Linux kernel development effort is a very personal process compared
-to "traditional" ways of developing software. Your code and ideas
-behind it will be carefully reviewed, often resulting in critique and
-criticism. The review will almost always require improvements to the
-code before it can be included in the kernel. Know that this happens
-because everyone involved wants to see the best possible solution for
-the overall success of Linux. This development process has been proven
-to create the most robust operating system kernel ever, and we do not
-want to do anything to cause the quality of submission and eventual
-result to ever decrease.
-
-If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise
-uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable.
How does inclusivity represent a change away from meritocracy?I think I can make things a little more clear.
Here is the bulk of the issue.
That is saying that some people feel attacked due to the process of critique and criticism of the code and that should not happen.
You then couple that with the beliefs of the people now pushing for a change away from meritocracy you get a sense that what they want is worse code from "better people". That is to say, they would rather worse code from people that have better beliefs and or actions.
Explicitly, the new COC says its based on https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
What is said there is this...
"This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
when an individual is representing the project or its community. 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."
The issue with that if people are representing the project/community. You could easily argue that anything done in public by someone of sufficient importance is always representing the community and thus their code could be removed.
As of right now, this is all speculation, but, given the comments and history of the people that pushed for this it seems like the motivation could be there.
So you are not impacted by this..... if im a linux contributor. Im not.
Ah yes, that bit where highly concerned male gamers ruthlessly attacked female game developers under the guise of protecting ethics in gaming journalism.This has the stench of gamergate all over it
How does inclusivity represent a change away from meritocracy?
Because I often see that argument but it doesn't hold up to logic. All else being equal, it would seem that a larger and more diverse pool of candidates will always lead to more competition and thus greater meritocracy.
And vice versa, a smaller and more exclusive pool means less meritocracy, especially when potentially deserving persons are excluded for reasons that have nothing to do with their merit.
Marginalized people also suffer some of the unintended consequences of dogmatic insistence on meritocratic principles of governance. Studies have shown that organizational cultures that value meritocracy often result in greater inequality. People with “merit” are often excused for their bad behavior in public spaces based on the value of their technical contributions. Meritocracy also naively assumes a level playing field, in which everyone has access to the same resources, free time, and common life experiences to draw upon. These factors and more make contributing to open source a daunting prospect for many people, especially women and other underrepresented people.
(For more critical analysis of meritocracy, refer to this entry on the Geek Feminism wiki.)
Meritocracy is government by those who have "merit", usually described as having the necessary ability or experience to do the job. It is commonly used in FLOSS and other technical communities.
However, meritocracies tend to promote those who not only have the skills/experience, but are also outspoken enough to let everyone know about it. This pushiness/ego/self-aggrandisement is something that women are generally discouraged from doing.
The supposed principles of a meritocracy sometimes include:
- "Merit" can be easily measured, or at least agreed upon by the whole community.
- "Merit" does not include factors like gender, race, age, disability, cultural background, and hobbies.
- The people who have become leaders have done so because their technical skills and ideas are the best.
- People without "merit" will be prevented from rising to the top.
- People with "merit" will not be prevented from rising to the top if they want to lead.
- Anyone with the aptitude to learn technical skills should be able to pick up leadership skills with no problem.
- Complete mastery of the technical skills is necessary to take on a leadership role.
So you are not impacted by this.
So you are whining because something bad happened to other people.
You are fighting injustice, not done to you, but done to others.
You are a Social Justice Warrior yourself.
By definition.
I think you must have missed the part where I said, "when potentially deserving persons are excluded for reasons that have nothing to do with their merit."Did you read the link I provided? Its answered right in the first part.
First go to this link.
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
That is saying that because people do not start out the same, its unfair to those that start behind when looking at what is produced. Those that start ahead are going to likely be able to produce better things and so they will continue to get ahead. Those that start behind will likely have a skills/ability gap and will never be able to compete.
The validation of that is the link within that section to the "Geek Feminism wiki" link which states the following.
Thus, Linix is moving away from just looking at what is produced, and will start to look at the people producing it.
Now, you asked how inclusivity could be a bad thing. Currently, you have two main camps. Those that say inclusivity means not preventing people from entering based on anything other than ability. The other side says that keeping out those with lesser ability is a form of bias that hurts those that were/are disadvantaged.
To think that this is only about raising standards of behavior would be to dismiss what is stated above. Clearly, the people pushing this have beliefs that judging people on ability alone is a problem. The only way to reduce that problem is to remove the filter of "merit" as "merit" enforces the problem.