On September 19, 2018 8:09:52 PM GMT+03:00, Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote: >Long observation of >people resenting CoCs is they want the right to speak cruelly to >individuals and speak cruelly about groups of people, those groups >having nothing to do with the list's core foundation (Linux sans >systemd, in our case). Sorry, Steve, that's intellectually dishonest. You're painting a black-and-white picture of "if people oppose CoCs then they must want to do things not allowed by the CoCs", however in all instances I have encountered where the need for a CoC was disputed I have seen the exact opposite. You do not need a CoC to protect people from bad words, and people who are contributing nothing but insults are quickly killfiled. CoCs do nothing but introduce filibustering in between contributors. The previous "Code of Conflict" was entirely adequate. The creator of the Contributor Covenant has written a "Post-Meritocracy Manifesto"[1] which describes meritocracies as "benefit[ing] those with privilege", aka social justice bullshit. The Linux kernel community /depends/ on a meritocracy, and this is absurd. On an unrelated note, I likened the updating of the kernel CoC to the requirement of Pulse on Firefox: a change nobody wanted but which happened anyway.
[1]: https://postmeritocracy.org/, only here for completeness. Save yourself a headache or two. m712 -- https://nextchan.org -- https://gitgud.io/blazechan/blazechan I am awake between 3AM-8PM UTC, HMU if the site's broken _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
