On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
do you think that this will bring back programmers?
No one who was making significant contributions to architectual
performance problems has left or stopped their contributions. We lost a
few ports committers, at least one of which was extremely idle. There is
disagreement on exactly how to proceed among the developer community but
it is nowhere near the level you're suggesting.
I believe people of many different stripes are attempting to capitalize on
this to push their own political agenda. I hope that other readers of
this list recognzie that this is not reflective of the project as a whole
and the CoC and benchmark results have nothing to do with eachother.
The core team is taking up the issue of what amendments may be necessary
based on developer feedback. Please give us time to make progress and
stop stirring up false controversy.
Jeff
Erich
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 12:43:10 -0600
Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote:
The plan is to do another revision, this time in public. We've
already done the first round of data collection and have data to
inform the revisions. Now that core election is done, progress can be
made.
Replying point by point to this misleading and slanted assessment is
not wothwhile.
Warner
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 12:22 PM Julian H. Stacey <j...@berklix.com>
wrote:
Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the
priority list:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-freebsd112-8linux&num=1
FreeBSD performance is really bad on some comparisons there.
Focusing on software would have made FreeBSD do better.
Yes, The new COC imposition distracted from coding:
The COC hi-jack replacement promoted by FreeBSD Foundation, was
contentious, incompetently phrased in places, imposed without
prior debate, enforced by a few commiters, wasted peoples time &
caused annoyance. Aside from the content, the process also
deserves reprimand. There were complaints to core@. Core
secretary wrote me that review was in progress. Nothing long since.
The hijacked COC needs at least core@ review.
Discussion before would have been better.
I'd at least suggest append:
"No one may edit this COC, without prior consent of core@"
As the promoting commiters abused due process, stifled debate, &
their hijacked COC foists their own "Code of Conduct Committee" &
taht will deny most appeals, a sceptical eye seems appropriate ;-)
Refs:
https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html
"This Code of Conduct is based on the example policy from the Geek
Feminism wiki."
https://web.archive.org/web/20170701000000*/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20170824113511/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html
Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, Computer Consultant, Systems Engineer, BSD Linux
Unix, Munich
Brexit Referendum stole 3.7 million votes inc. 700,000 from
British in EU. UK Goverment lies it's democratic in Article 50
paragraph 3 of letter to EU.
http://exitbrexit.uk
_______________________________________________
freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
