After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 22, 2018 18:57 UTC (Sat) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
In reply to: After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker) by deater
Parent article: After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

The last bastion of 90's hacker culture has died, and it wasn't due to a technically superior project coming along as I always assumed would happen, but due to politics. The eternal September takes one final victim.

You know what? Nothing bad has actually happened yet. What did happen is that Linus Torvalds said, in effect, “I don't want to act like an asshole anymore and I don't want you guys to do so, either.” Which apparently came as a bit of a nasty surprise for some people who rather liked him as an asshole (and perhaps also liked the implicit licence to act like assholes themselves, because Linus does it and don't we all want to be a bit like Linus?) – but so far there is no compelling reason to assume that, for example, he (or for that matter Greg K-H, who is standing in for him in his absence) will suddenly start accepting sub-standard code submissions into Linux, or that the actual demise of the Linux project is otherwise imminent. The self-styled prophets of doom should really get a grip and wait for a week or six before making silly and overblown pronouncements.

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 23, 2018 8:04 UTC (Sun) by anotheruser (guest, #127270) [Link] (10 responses)

> You know what? Nothing bad has actually happened yet.

Sage Sharp has already used the CoC to falsely accuse Ted T'so of violating it (over comments he made years ago). It took only 4 days.

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 23, 2018 8:29 UTC (Sun) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] (8 responses)

She pointed out that he was the only one to vote against the CoC's adoption and he also (AFAIR) downplayed sexual assault in an argument a couple years ago.

Now where do you find an accusation, let alone a false one? And what are the consequences? Because if there are no consequences, then I don't see what bad supposedly happened.

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 23, 2018 10:09 UTC (Sun) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (7 responses)

She pointed out that he was the only one to vote against the CoC's adoption

The CoC commit was “signed off by” six of the ten current TAB members, plus Linus Torvalds himself. Ted Ts'o was not among the signatories but from that we can't conclude that he “voted against” its adoption. Given the short timeframe involved, perhaps he was simply not available to sign it. (Incidentally, the other three non-signers are H. Peter Anvin, Tim Bird, and Rik Van Riel.)

and he also (AFAIR) downplayed sexual assault in an argument a couple years ago.

A few years ago, Ted Ts'o commented critically on some of the statistics put forward in a discussion on rape. Whether that is “rape apology” or a valid fact-based contribution to the discussion is a matter of opinion, but to some people at the time it was quite an outrage.

Anyway, Sage Sharp did not actually make a CoC complaint. What they did was wonder aloud (on Twitter) whether the Linux Foundation TAB was qualified to handle CoC complaints if it contained the well-known “rape apologist”, Ted Ts'o. Sage Sharp also pointed out some procedural issues that the TAB might address to be better prepared to handle CoC complaints as they come in, but these don't look like show-stoppers to me. As far as Ted Ts'o's presence on the TAB is concerned, if the kernel community considers that a problem they can decline to reelect him when his seat is up. Finally, Sage Sharp, AFAIK, is not currently working on the Linux kernel, so whether they have standing to make actual CoC complaints is anybody's guess.

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 23, 2018 10:25 UTC (Sun) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]

Thank you very very much for clarifying those facts. Shows how inexact human memory really is and that I should have dug up that tweet again before commenting.

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 24, 2018 7:38 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (5 responses)

Under this new CoC, accusing Tso of rape appologism (a clear ad-hominem attac) would put Sharp in a bad position. Oh, the irony. And of course, it shows that problems can be dealt with without a CoC. Unless your problem is eroding Linux leadership, that is.

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 24, 2018 8:58 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (4 responses)

Indeed, I forgot to add that Sage Sharp's attacking Ted Ts'o over something that (a) happened long ago and (b) is by no means as obviously vile as they make it out to be could be considered a form of “harassment” under the new CoC and therefore actionable if Sage Sharp were a member of the kernel development community and Ted Ts'o were to make a complaint.

As far as “it shows that problems can be dealt with without a CoC” is concerned, sure. But here's what the Django project's Code of Conduct FAQ has to say on the matter:

Why do we need a Code of Conduct? Everyone knows not to be a jerk.

Sadly, not everyone knows this.

However, even if everyone was kind, everyone was compassionate, and everyone was familiar with codes of conduct it would still be incumbent upon our community to publish our own. Maintaining a code of conduct forces us to consider and articulate what kind of community we want to be, and serves as a constant reminder to put our best foot forward. But most importantly, it serves as a signpost to people looking to join our community that we feel these values are important.

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 28, 2018 6:59 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (3 responses)

If articulating the value system of the community is the goal, then a *code* of conduct is a rather imperfect mechanism. A code fixes specific behaviors, but not the reasons for them.

I think a declaration of principles would be more adequate. Universal Declaration of Hacker Rights anyone? (sounds like a job ESR would love).

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 28, 2018 11:21 UTC (Fri) by codeofdrama (guest, #127444) [Link] (2 responses)

It's not exactly a UDHR, but as an intellectual exercise, I've been thinking about what useful rights a social contract might contain.

Of the rights I've come up with, the unifying theme is tolerance. Practically this means that the powers-that-be (owners, moderators, etc.) won't ban/moderate people for the sole reason of exercising one or more of the rights, even though the powers-that-be might have the formal right to ban/moderate anyone for any reason whatsoever.

A simple example could be: A participant has the right to use Oxford spelling.

Where it gets interesting is when people self-select out of a community because they find a right intolerable.

I see these sort of rights as a supplement to compelled, and prohibited behaviour in describing the boundaries of social interaction.

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 28, 2018 16:25 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (1 responses)

The important thing about tolerance as a value that is constantly and loudly misunderstood by many is that is is a two party contract, I tolerate you as long as you tolerate me, if one person fails in that by being intolerant then they no longer earn tolerance. Without that understanding then calls for tolerance just becomes another tool for the socially powerful to dominate, where they demand tolerance for themselves and their behavior but are unwilling to extend that courtesy to others. So it isn't so much that you have a "right" to have others tolerate your behavior, its that you can earn tolerance by how well you tolerate and treat others.

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 30, 2018 4:27 UTC (Sun) by koenkooi (subscriber, #71861) [Link]

Also known as Popper's Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 23, 2018 13:00 UTC (Sun) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

Sharp's histrionics are a transparent, deliberately timed, politically motivated act that the CoC not only does not protect, but rather forbids.

Not that it matters either way, because as they're rather vocal about their desire to remain a non-contributor, they aren't subject to the protections in the document in the first place.