Linux Code of Conduct | Why you need to Apologize?

[@linuxguy1199]

This rule was retroactively enforced, and swear words have historically been standard for kernel development by major kernel contributors. Shall we also ban Linus Torvalds and other contributors for doing the same? Who gets to be rude and who doesn't? I dont see the need for an apology - a very strong warning and a timeout for sure though. A public apology seems dishonest from the get go, especially if forced. And considering the controversy it ends up looking like just an indirect way to bully Kent for not following the release schedule and making crappy changes. Its obvious selective enforcement and that causes me to loose far more trust in the kernel then a maintainer being rude like many other kernel maintainers have been. Also, If this is about funding reasons then why not just make the kernel closed source and sell it as a product? It'd be far more profitable. You could hire thousands of kernel developers and pay them by the line of code. The kernel was and should stay a passion project, and it should be maintained by people who are passionate about thier ideas. Those people also tend to defend their ideas aggressively, and this for the most part encourages intelligent discourse. Unfortunately some people can take it too far, however removing people for being rude is something I don't think we should be doing. I think this whole thing has been overreacted to from the get go. Let's say Kent Overstreet one day finds a RCE vulnerability in btrfs while stealing code to put in bcachefs, do we ignore the patch because he calls the person who introduced the bug an imaginative word?

[@Maple-Circuit]

>This rule was retroactively enforced Not true, see the last paragraph. www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.html#scope >swear words The problem isn't swear words but the idea that a maintainer is untrustworthy. >Shall we also ban Linus Torvalds Not retroactively but i seem to remember when the first push for CoC changes happened and it was core and center that Linus behavior had to change (which it did). >I dont see the need for an apology - a very strong warning and a timeout for sure though. That is another way to do it, most system will allow and prefer apologies as they prevent the timeout and we all want our maintainer to be able to merge (; >Its obvious selective enforcement Nahhh >Also, If this is about funding reasons then why not just make the kernel closed source and sell it as a product? No, the reason why the kernel works is because it is open source. >The kernel was and should stay a passion project It isn't a passion project for over 2 decades. Most dev and staff related to the kernel are paid by private businesses and its a good thing! We would have a kernel that looks alot more like BSD (and there is private investment there too!) >and it should be maintained by people who are passionate about thier ideas. my earlier answer doesn't mean that i don't want people to care about the kernel, they should and almost always are. The issue is that we all need money to live and passion won't get you a full time salary making code for almost nobody. >Let's say Kent Overstreet one day finds a RCE vulnerability in btrfs while stealing code to put in bcachefs, do we ignore the patch because he calls the person who introduced the bug an imaginative word? No, we should never ignore a good patch! What is a bit different here is Maintainer status, Kent is a maintainer thus needs to abide by the rules of the kernel. With that comes the privileges of being able to merge code with less scrutiny. That was an effort comment and i love it! Thank you for your time (;

[@tuskiomisham]

@@Maple-Circuit lolol "Not true! Source? We said so!"

[@Maple-Circuit]

@@tuskiomisham idk if i'm reading you right but at that point, it would be the "was retractive" camp that needs to prove that it was (; was the CoC change?

[@ikcikor3670]

@@Maple-Circuit yes, it actually was changed AFTER the issue

[@Maple-Circuit]

@@ikcikor3670 ... Proof?

[@CocolinoFan]

The problem is, this rule was retroactively implemented. When Kent was naughty this rule was not there.

[@CocolinoFan]

I want the Code of Conduct team, also make Linus apologize, at least for the last 20 time he swore.

[@CocolinoFan]

Ok, but by your logic, the Code of Conduct team should have told the Linux board what punishment they suggest and the Linux board should have asked Kent to apologize. P.S. I don't think Kent is a good guy, but we need to be fair.

[@Maple-Circuit]

CoC cannot be applied retroactively docs.kernel.org/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.html#scope (last paragraph) The fact that anyone swore isn't an issue, but the substance of what was said is. The full process is the code of conduct received notification of the violation, made a judgement, went to TAB to get their auth to enforce it and enforced it. Love to argue, Thanks!

[@simonslater7257]

@@Maple-Circuit but you swore. you said CoC! It's not an issue, I like the substance :).

[@JonBrase]

The first issue is that an apology made under duress, especially duress from a third party, is little more than window dressing. Arguably, if the CoCC judges that a severe enough violation has occurred to warrant disciplinary action, that action should occur unconditionally: as far as policy goes, an apology should make no difference. Any apology should be a matter of personal reconciliation. Another issue is that CoCC disciplinary meetings do not seem to involve the accused (as is generally required in governmental judicial processes), nor do they have publicly published minutes (once again, for governmental judicial proceedings, it's generally considered best practice that the accused have a right to a public trial). So there's concern about the CoCC basically being a kangaroo court. Just because Overstreet's behavior is bad enough that people are generally fine with him being kangarooed (he doesn't seem to be much better at following logistical rules about what gets submitted where than he is about following the CoC, and all the evidence indicates that Linus is done with him on that) doesn't mean that the existence of a kangaroo court controlling whose code is allowed into the kernel is a net positive for Linux. There are also issues relating to the profile of the average person qualified to do kernel development and the implications that has for the culture of FOSS and society's interactions with the community, but there's a whole wall of text I'd need to write to put that in context.

[@Maple-Circuit]

i don't agree that it was under duress and there is level to the violation, in this case, a public apology the day after would have been good (at least for my standard). I don't hold the Linux org to the same standard as the government. if a maintainer is most likely acting in bad faith and merging bad code into the kernel, i think he/she should be remove... even if it doesn't get to the beyond a resonable doubt standard of a court. For your last point, don't expend it. We probably agree and it would take 5 days to write the minute differences between us XD Much love for that comment, thanks!

[@vilian9185]

@@Maple-Circuit >bad faith and merging bad code that happened with systemd maintainer, Linus was angry about the kernel bugs that distros had to fix manually, and said that he wouldn't merge new code if it was buggy

[@EfremZecarias]

Also apologies hold a certain cultural taboo among Americans. It had to be explained to me that Americans as a general rule never apologise for any thing. This is strange to me as I throw out many apologies daliy. (Especially when I need to do important things curtly.) There's just no taboo among Canadians. This is just one of their cultural quirks.

[@Maple-Circuit]

True!

[@Hornet1806]

I don't think it's true that "Americans as a general rule never apologize [sic] for any thing." I know some Americans. They don't fit that generalization at all. Canadians on the other hand - it's _definitely_ baked into the culture that apologies are given out freely. Too freely, imo.

[@Maple-Circuit]

Also true, not all Americans, but it is clearly a bigger part of the general American culture to stick to your guns (;

[@StarOnCheek]

Not all apologies are the same. If you apologize when you believe you are right, it sets the president for future abuse or dismissal. Why would people fix their shit if the one suggesting they should do it is the person that always apologies for something. Are they always wrong and that's why? Should we even listen to them then?

[@EfremZecarias]

​@@StarOnCheek You can feel that you are correct and withhold apologising; however you'll be juged for the lack of cooperation and probably be punished/removed... but if you feel that you are correct. Fine. Your behaviour is just irreconcilable with Linux's social norms and conduct. Part ways.

[@StephenMcGregor1986]

"need" to apologize "need" to throw out the whole CoC

[@ivanmaglica264]

Apologize? Is that some sort of ioctl command?

[@Maple-Circuit]

Lol

[@TavishMcEwen]

I'm so excited to see bcachefs improve (i'm using it at root with five drives) I hope Kent stops being an asshole, i don't want it to have to run it out of tree.

[@etcher6841]

How about no

[@Maple-Circuit]

lol

[@QIZI94]

There are two sides to this yeah some people might have a problem with the last line and swearing but I think some people just might look at this seeing that code of conduct creates unnecessary drama (and that project was doing just fine without it for majority of its existence) and decide not to contribute.

[@khatdubell]

"id' be saying the same thing if it were kent or linus or anyone else" Then why aren't you calling out linus who engages in this behavior on a regular basis? 🤔

[@Maple-Circuit]

Show it, and I'll call it out.

[@khatdubell]

​@@Maple-Circuit Linus talking to kent the same way he was talking to someone else kzbin.info/www/bejne/fX3Kc2VulpV0hLssi=7ykvW9tB8Um6p0OZ&t=283 For the record, i agree with linus, but what is different from the way linus is dealing with kent vs the way kent is dealing with that other guy. And you can't say the cussing because you already ruled that out.

[@Maple-Circuit]

@@khatdubell How can you say that Linus was out of line here.... ? He outlined clearly what would happen if he didn't stop his behavior in the most gentle way possible... Is it the toy analogy? What do you think could have been said differently? I appreciate your dedication to respond but i'm confused on how you understand both email...

[@khatdubell]

@@Maple-Circuit ​ idk, i didn't see it as gentile. It came off as condescending, insulting, and PA to me.

[@StarOnCheek]

You are right with most of what you are saying but I believe this totally misses the context where what Kent said was probably deserved. He specifically mentions that this is not the first time unacceptable behavior is implemented which, to me, implies that Kent was being polite and helpful to Mikel before and the help and politeness was refused. Mikel though he had what it took too many times so the language had to change. I hope I am wrong and Kent just lashed out out of nowhere because otherwise this sets a sad president.

[@radosawbrzezinski4161]

I don't understand why people in the comments are against even the existance of code of conduct. but to be honest i shouldn't expect much from people who use "woke" as pejorative

[@QIZI94]

Its quite simple, there wasn’t code of conduct before. Kernel and the community was just fine or even great, disputes were resolved on personal level,. It was more honest community. The perception is that it creates more drama, some people don’t want to work or contribute to projects if it creates drama. Also other way on looking at is that dark triad personalities usually thrive in places with strict rules using them for power plays. But I don’t think this specific case is that tho.

[@radosawbrzezinski4161]

@@QIZI94 at some point organization/project becomes large enough that it needs guidelines and certain amount of red tape to function effectively. and that includes public and contributors relations (purpose of code of conduct)

[@QIZI94]

@@radosawbrzezinski4161 you present it in a way that its self evident, but it isn’t. What is or isn’t necessary for what ever is critical mass for a project to implement CoC is a matter of opinion or theory so I am taking it that way. People have issues with CoC because it doesn’t improve the product or community, but contributing, reviewing and discussing the code does. What CoC does in general, it eventually devolves into passive aggressive, fake empathy and silent treatment filled discussions. So don’t be surprised some people would rather be told to them straight and on point then guessing. This reminds me of corporate spaces where I am paid enough to care about CoC. Since Microsoft and other companies bought their influence, they are directly connected to the product. This happens around the same time as introduction of code of conduct in linux kernel. So I think better explanation for CoC is was introduced to protect investors and influencer companies. But to say that CoC somehow improves the quality of product or community doesn’t make much sense, at least to me.

[@bertblankenstein3738]

Well, the video was going along well until you mentioned our Canadian house of commons. Lol. It could be argued that not many politicians are honorable.

[@Maple-Circuit]

XD

[@simonslater7257]

I offer a simpler solution. The person he swore out... They can swear back. Arguments happen. Kernel forks. War breaks out. We have Linux nation and Linux++ nation. Around 13:08, you said that a developer should never say publicly that malicious code is put into the kernel(I think you meant without evidence). I disagree, people need to be aware of the possibility. There are definitely malicious people and yes they might want to break the kernel. Why? Because they can? Maybe for a laugh. I've crashed my PC for a laugh and done the same to my family's computers. They were okay with it, they're my fam and it was funny. Ego also comes into it. Imagine if you was so smart that you could introduce a bug to break a million PCs. I bet you'd get an adrenaline rush out of it and a bloody good laugh lol.

[@lucidmoses]

Not true. Apologizes do nothing to solve any problem. There purpose is to acknowledge that someone understands what they did is wrong. To demonstrate they have learned. You still need to solve the problem. i.e. fix the code or whatever. However. Sometimes there is nothing that can be done to fix it. As in this case. Apologizing will not change peoples opinion that they are not a nice person. It can only mean they are willing to try and it's future conduct that can show it's fixed. If they don't want to apologizes, Don't force them. You'll just be forcing them to lie on top of the rude. Just remove them from the group.

[@Maple-Circuit]

True, to apologize is not to fix the problem but the first step to it.

[@lucidmoses]

@@Maple-Circuit Only if he needs to be in the group. The linux group is too big for any one contributor. If they are not a good fit, so be it, apologies or not.

[@jacekszczukocki5506]

You are missing the point. The only question that matters is "was Kent right?". Lets think for a moment what happened here: - Kent commented on a change - Some lady in some committee was offended on behalf of Mikel At the moment code of conflict became code of conduct this bs was inevitable. It's not about the code and quality anymore but about feelings, who is offended the most and who is bigger victim.

[@wheezard]

watch the first part of the video. she wasn't "offended on [Michal's] behalf", public apologies are necessary for *other people* to realize that what Kent said was not okay. She's not asking for an apology to her, she's aking for an apology to the community as a whole so that other people would not see this as precedent.

[@jacekszczukocki5506]

@@wheezard That is not kindergarten. Who are these people that need to be told how you should communicate? Do we really have people that needed to be informed after kindergarten that "this boy said something we don't like" ?? I think two adult men can figure out between themselves if someone needs apology. Lady from committee of political correctness has nothing to do there. We have to agree that we are adults, engineers and the goal is the quality of software not for everyone to be patted on the shoulder.

[@wheezard]

@@jacekszczukocki5506 code of conduct is there for a reason. Kent broke the rules, and there are consequences for that. that's it. an apology maybe overkill, however, the point is in the public admission of guilt. he gotta acknowledge that he messed up and broke the rules of CoC and will avoid doing it in the future. simple as that. a private apology is good, but in order for the rules to be enforced equally, there can't be any such exceptions.

[@jacekszczukocki5506]

@@wheezard Code of conduct exists for a reason and the reason is that people that don't code are addicted to political correctness. Tell me - who are these people that need this? Do you? I'm asking because for me only quality of code matters. Was there a backlash I haven't heard about ?? Or is it just a lady from PC police crying to be seen?

[@Kwijibob]

Code of conduct for an open source project is absurd. Expecting people working for free to adhere to rules about their behavior is unreasonable. You have to pay people for their work if you want to have any say over anything they do or don't do. Now on the other hand, if someone is persistently insufferable to the extent it isn't worth dealing with them, it's reasonable to exclude them from the project. I would suggest that rules monkeys fall squarely into that category. Nobody should apologize for something they aren't sorry for either. That's disingenuous and a form of lying, as well as cowardly if you actually believe what you said was accurate and appropriate.

[@Maple-Circuit]

My government and I are both cowardly and I love it!

[@cgarzs]

@@Maple-Circuit Pride in cowardice. This is so perfect for my scrapbox of why the world is doomed. Thanks 👍

[@gungun974]

I had a reflexion yesterday. Some people here said he shouldn’t apologize since nobody will force linus torvald itself to apologize. That’s partially true but now let’s think like this. The creator of linux is someone that brilliant, is a true core part of Linux but can easily be angry. We love him but when his angry, nothing is cool anymore. What can we do ? Nothing directly ? But maybe we can make the people around him not like him. That’s why we don’t really want some people like Kant. They are like linus in some way and we would prefer honesty to only have one linus to manage. It’s maybe a weird reflexion but it’s interesting enough to be shared

[@Maple-Circuit]

True, there can only be one king (;

[@jonnyso1]

Except, Linus did apologize, or at least recognized his behaviour should improve. He doesn't suggar coat things but I wouldnt say hes offensive either, or unprofessional and impolite might be a better way to put it, I think whats offensive can vary depending on whos getting it.

[@test-rj2vl]

Apology will not fix the problem. What fixes the problem is creating a fork of kernel that is developed independently from Code of Conduct team so that devs can actually focus on delivering best possible code and not spend their time on woke stuff. Then people would have choice - those who want most stable and up to date kernel can download it from the fork and those users for whom political correctness is more important than functional software can download it from woke repository.

[@Maple-Circuit]

Lol, I was once like you. Maybe one day you'll see that it isn't "woke" to root out those whose behavior cause everybody around them to work harder/suffer reputational loss. You must know that the fork that you are talking about would be impractical at any scale near the current one.

[@Hornet1806]

@@Maple-Circuit Linux was developed fine before CoC.

[@Maple-Circuit]

@@Hornet1806 yes but the scale wasn't the same and we don't have the dictator model like we used to, we have a real Linux foundation there to finance/protect the project, why should we limit ourselves to small "if the leader doesn't like me i'm screwed"? What we have now is better. I challenge you to think (not google) of someone else that has been in one of those violation... You won't be able to, because the violation rate is so low. Look: www.kernel.org/code-of-conduct.html We are talking about less-than 10 a year... I respect both of you but this is a non issue...

[@Hornet1806]

@@Maple-Circuit How many people have been affected is irrelevant. A code of conduct that *requires* people to "apologize" is on its face worthless, because it ignores reality in favour of theatre. To say nothing of the fact that its enforcement apparently works in retrospect as well. The CoC is in fact, the "dictator model" .. you just like what it's saying more than you liked someone calling someone else an idiot and not having to apologize.

[@Maple-Circuit]

The effect of the CoC is the only thing that matters If the "dictator model" means that 2 bodies (the CoCC and the TAB) need to vote with a great majority to apply their punishment.... you have a weird sense of what is a dictator.. Your outrage is not founded on fact or reality. Pls come back to reality and assess how you would fix the problem. How would a unruly dev be punished? Do you want Linus to waste his time with it? Also, if the CoCC with the TAB doesn't hold the ban hammer, who should?

[@Triro]

Brian Lunduke makes a great video about why Code of Conducts shouldn't exist. And I agree.

[@Maple-Circuit]

I went and watched and its horrible. I thought Brian was a great guy but that's just too much lying to bear. First, the way that it worked before was that the leader/dictator had all the power, IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION there is still someone with a ban hammer it would just be called Linus... Which is better, Linus with the ban hammer or 2 committee (the CoC and the TAB) that needs to vote with great majorities and for the TAB, are elected? The claim that the code of conduct was change to attack Kent is just a lie. Yes, a lie *no proof* nothing. Look the guys sees conspiracy where there is none... or he is milking this as he knows that people are primed for that kind of rhetoric...

[@diegoaugusto1561]

​@@Maple-Circuit lunduke is a dumbass, I've never seen a good take on his

[@vilian9185]

@@Maple-Circuit >there is still someone with a ban hammer it would just be called Linus wouldn't the maintainers also have the ban hammer on their tree?, if you don't make a good patch they not gonna pull it and it not going to Linus tree >Look the guys sees conspiracy where there is none true, the same with the russian maintainers drama, instead of them searching and finding that USA banned russia military companies and as consequence their employers commits, their just went there claiming russiaphobia etc, idk why o much drama for nothing

[@test-rj2vl]

2:15 - I disagree. If those words offend you, you are just snow flake.

[@Maple-Circuit]

I mean, i'm canadian... i'm 50% snow 50% maple syrup XD

[@diegoaugusto1561]

you don't see how offensive language is offensive? are you mental? if this were acceptable you would say that to your mother, but you wouldn't say that, would you? this is a professional environment, you don't say rubbish like that

[@rch5395]

Code of conduct is cringe :(

[@cabocoaxial]

This video is too much woke :)

[@Maple-Circuit]

Who knew that being for the growth of the kernel was woke!

[@cabocoaxial]

@@Maple-Circuit am too much white to work on linux . sorry for that.

[@Maple-Circuit]

@@cabocoaxial lol