Don' let the door hit you on the way out i guess. I mean it sounds mean but the scene can do with less toxic types like this, who try to bully people who know better, in order to get their way. Even worse in this case since he actually tried to create a social media shit-storm against those he disagreed with.
He even has defenders calling for yet more CoCs in order to better "deal with" people who "get in the way." It doesn't get much more toxic than that.
All the extrajudicial stuff is pure political and ideological wank by a subset of ideological extremists. Pay no attention to any of it. It's an attempt to redefine the term for narrative creation purposes.
The short of his rant is that he wants a "Code Of Standards for maintainers" in addition to a CoC, in order to witch hunt people he feels "gets in the way."
Yikes, this is EXACTLY what Linus was talking about except an order of magnitude worse!
No. He just wants people to have some decency and standards in communication and not arbitrarily decide that their little kingdom can never be touched.
This does not read as a rant at all to me. Rather it seeks to highlight a problem using an example from his own work and proposes a possible solution (with a previous caveat of “I don’t know how to fix this”).
> "Code Of Standards for maintainers" in addition to a CoC
He wants maintainers to behave in some pre-determined understandable fashion. He wants some accountability, and that seems reasonable to me. This is not a “maintainers must do what I want”, this is “let’s set basic expectations” and ensure people follow them. Whatever those should be.
> in order to witch hunt people he feels "gets in the way."
B does not follow A. You are simply straw-manning here, so I have nothing to say to it other than it’s a fallacious point.
His complaint is, in essence, that people will block technical proposals for nontechnical reasons, and that attempts to resolve this result in people complaining that you're talking about nontechnical things at all.
Few people like dealing with interpersonal conflict. They want to think that technical meritocracy wins the arguments.
But in that discussion, a maintainer said "I am going to try to sabotage this because I hate it.", and there's no technical argument to resolve that. And there's not really any route other than escalation to some kind of authority if there's not a common negotiation baseline.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into."
>in order to witch hunt people he feels "gets in the way."
When has this ever happened with the Linux CoC? The only people who I've seen banging pots and pans together about the CoC are folks who like to sealion [1]
For the sake of this issue here, does it matter which is used i wonder, because I have been unable to find any source willing to spell it out. (that is, is simply turning it off on the adapter enough)
It's even worse than that. Even if these did work, the goal isn't just to make it harder.. These will act as a chilling effect on viewing, the first time there is a security risk, or it become convenient, the information will be out there. Or at least the risk and fear of such.
