Sharp: Closing a door

It is just unfortunate that it is spoiled by an irrational and unjustified accusation of extreme and deliberate incompetence.

Had Linus, on proof-reading before posting, simply deleted the line about "stringing random characters
together until it compiles" it would have done nothing to reduce the effectiveness of the email, and much to reduce the possibility of it causing harm.

I understand that Linus believes that the passion he displays is an important part of his communication style, and he may well be correct. There is a very simple rule that allows you to maintain emotional passion, but avoid (or substantially reduce) the risk of harm:

Make "I" statements, not "you" statements.

"I can't believe I still get patches which add new warnings"

This is only one line in an otherwise very productive email. But it is unarguably attacking "people" (and by implication one or two specific people) rather than attacking the code. And "attack code, not people" seems to be an informal code-of-conduct that is largely agreed too.

> BTW I think CoC's are Marxist "right-think" tools of censorship...

I'm a little surprised that you are agreeing to use the same language as the rest of us - I'm sure it restricts your ability to think freely....
FWIW, I think CoC's are useful tool for unambiguous communication of group norms. It is intrinsic in the human condition that we sacrifice individual freedom to benefit from group support. In situations where body language cannot communicate/mediate those norms, a CoC can help.

I kept thinking about this ... partly because I wasn't really happy with my flippant response (sorry), partly because seeing "Marxist" and "right" in the same sentence seems odd, but mostly because I need something to think about as I cycle around the bay.

I guess your reference to "Marxist" draws a parallel with the contrast between a controlled economy and a free market. Having a Code of Conduct is a bit like a controlled economy - you are only allow to do that which is within the rules. You, I presume, would prefer a more free-market approach where people can say what they like but must suffer the consequences.

While the free-market has a lot of strengths, it has requirements that are not always met - particularly various freedoms and transparencies. There are some edge cases where it doesn't work at all, such as fly-by-night confidence tricksters and monopolies. Most (all?) free markets still have regulation to try to avoid the worst excesses of these.

In the kernel community, a senior maintainer - and particularly Linus - has an effective monopoly. The result is that market forces don't really work ... or they work by people leaving the community and going to work in some other project which isn't healthy for the kernel community.

So people suggest the Marxist controlled economy of a Code of Conduct. Is that the only way?

One idea I came across a while ago that applies to leadership teams is "Ask for forgiveness, not permission". The idea is that if all the team members keep having to ask permission to do things, nothing much gets done. If instead they are given freedom to follow their own ideas, with the understanding that forgiveness can be negotiated if things go wrong, then the net result is much more positive.

Applying that to the kernel community, I imagine the community as a whole being the source of permission or forgiveness, and the individual kernel maintainers (from Linus out toward the fringes) being the team members who might mess up occasionally and so might need permission in advance, or forgiveness after the fact.

A CoC promotes the "You need permission first" approach and maybe that it a good reason to reject it (in the context of a smallish community of maintainers - it may be more appropriate else where).

So how would the "ask for forgiveness" approach apply? It would mean that team members who (whether through carelessness or malice) harm the community (or part of the community) would need to acknowledge the harm and seek forgiveness, and the community should be ready to forgive.

A lot of the infractions that are mentioned in these discussions are from years ago. This suggests the community is not eager to forgive. But then there has been little or no acknowledgement of harm (not even "I don't see how what I said was hurtful, but I can see that you are hurt, and I'm sorry for that hurt whatever its cause") or requests for forgiveness.

Are we, as a community, capable of compassion? Capable of acknowledging we may be complicit in some hurt? Capable of seeking and providing forgiveness? Or do we drive away all the people with those abilities?

Add 'desperate'? In the past six months the Atom editor community grew faster than the stewards could keep up. I'd guess that the leaders felt like they needed to do something and do it fast. Their first choice blew up in their face (IMO rightfully so), but the second one seems pretty harmless.

Maybe this falls under 'confused.'

In general, I agree: CoCs end up getting gamed by trolls, encouraging SJWs, and causing way WAY too much useless discussion. But it's a very real problem that they're trying to solve, and they're among the very few tools that project leaders can turn to. If you have a workable alternative, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested.