Changing the world with better documentation

- I have a few patches in the kernel and maybe a few in fd.o projects, but am not otherwise involved;
- I'm not familiar with the people in the linked thread personally (though I've seen those names and handles on here on occasion);
- I don't know of other behavior that might be related, so I'm looking at this thread in isolation (e.g., does hch have a habit of such reactions or is Daniel Stone trigger happy on invoking the CoC); and
- I'm not familiar with the code in the discussion, so I can't tell if anyone is being purposefully difficult or ignorant as to technical points being made.

> To what extend do you think, that the allegation has merrit?

The thread was civil until the message by hch being called out started implying that the others were lazy rather than disagreeing on technical merits.

> What parts of the codes of conducts does the allegation refer to?

I'd classify it as ad hominem in general. As for CoC references:

Kernel CoC: "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences". There's a technical disagreement of which I can't argue to the merits of, but calling someone lazy is at least not respecting viewpoints. Likely empathy as also slipped a little. fd.o's CoC is largely the same AFAICS.

> To what extend do you think, that the language of the allegation itself violates the codes of conduct?

I assume you're referring to this part:

> if you still can't participate in reasonable discussion like an adult

since I don't see anything remotely at issue with the rest of it. This is not on the same level as the called out behavior, but still not how I think I'd have worded it exactly. The outburst was implying that the others are being lazy for not doing some action. This is a call out to a single instance of behavior being childish (it could have been worded more precisely I think). It's the difference between "that's an asshole thing to do" vs. "you're an asshole". The former (to me; non-native speakers may have different readings) implies that improvement is there by changing one's actions whereas the second is concluding something about the person and that there isn't a(n easy) way to fix something.

I don't know of hch's prior behavior (if any), but in isolation, I probably would have called out the outburst (possibly privately), referencing the CoC, but not "threatening" with it…which is what I see done here. Acknowledgement from hch would be nice to see, but private communication would also likely suffice. I can sympathize with hch on the frustration part, but the right solution is not to imply that other developers are being lazy, but to do as Daniel suggests: take a bit of time to calm down before replying. Maybe better technical details would work, but again, there's obviously some misunderstanding on a technical level here, but it's beyond my personal experience.

> Is there proper a place, and way to challenge allegations?

For reporting behavior, the kernel CoC mentions <conduct@kernel.org> and fd.o mentions 3 email addresses as well as a list. It being private makes it hard to reply to allegations. I don't see evidence that this thread was elevated to an official report (though the callout was from a member of fd.o's conduct team), so I don't know what there is to officially challenge in this instance. But…

> Is this an opportunity to improve the Linux kernel code of conduct?

Absolutely. Every interaction with it is an opportunity to improve it. No different than computer code, law, personal relationships, among many other things in life.

You have a reasonable conversation, attempt to understand the perspective of the other point of view, make a decision and then follow through on it. You're not necessarily going to find a solution that makes everyone happy, but that's not a reason not to try.