/tech/ - Technology★

CODE OF CONDUCT

1. no drama

How about this one

The Linux kernel development effort is a very personal process compared
to "traditional" ways of developing software.  Your code and ideas
behind it will be carefully reviewed, often resulting in critique and
criticism.  The review will almost always require improvements to the
code before it can be included in the kernel.  Know that this happens
because everyone involved wants to see the best possible solution for
the overall success of Linux.  This development process has been proven
to create the most robust operating system kernel ever, and we do not
want to do anything to cause the quality of submission and eventual
result to ever decrease.

If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise
uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable.  If so,
please contact the Linux Foundation's Technical Advisory Board at
<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>, or the individual members, and they
will work to resolve the issue to the best of their ability.  For more
information on who is on the Technical Advisory Board and what their
role is, please see:

- http://www.linuxfoundation.org/projects/linux/tab

As a reviewer of code, please strive to keep things civil and focused on
the technical issues involved.  We are all humans, and frustrations can
be high on both sides of the process.  Try to keep in mind the immortal
words of Bill and Ted, "Be excellent to each other."

Ruby's CoC isn't too bad. Just enough that they might accept it, but doesn't try to apply outside of the project (they specifically say it only applies inside it).

https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/conduct/

>Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

>Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

>When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should always assume good intentions.

>Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.

>We're not getting out of having a CoC

Fuck off nigger

CODE OF CONDUCT

1. kill yourself

>>975396

Think of this to traditional CoCs as the GPL is to traditional software licenses.

>>975401

No

The code of conflict worked fine. We didn't need this new CoC.

>>975393

Just keep the first paragraph.

* All code added to this repository must be up to the standards of code used before it or better.
* Anyone with any affiliation to any government agency may not attempt to add code to this repository or have any other influence therein.
* Anyone who has not submitted and had code approved to this repository may not comment on any of the internal workings, and may only submit technically accurate bug reports. Any other activity will result in a ban

call it a framework

>>975388 (OP)

The Code of Conduct

1. If you do not like the conduct of another contributor, fork the repo and fuck off.

2. If anyone suggests replacing or modifying, hints at replacing modifying, or attempts to replace or modify this Code of Conduct, they are permanently banned from the project.

3. If this Code of Conduct is replaced or modified at any point in the future (including in any forks), the software license of the project from then on out is changed to make possessing or viewing the project's code an intellectual property violation.

4. If anyone even discusses this Code of Conduct on communication systems internal to the project (except in the instance of pointing out violations of rules 1,2, or 3), they are banned from the project for life.

The new code of conduct is

-no swj allowed

That's pretty much it

Whoever came up with code of conduct for coding anyways.

Code of Conduct

Don't be a nigger.

why does this coc-mania feel suspiciously like a trojan horse?

>>975416

That's literally what the old linux CoC was.

>>975431

because the new code of conduct as a secret clause (in a non-free blob attached to it) that will bundle systemd (NSA/Russia adware) with the linux kernel and automatically update itself on all distributions except for OpenBSD, 9front, and TempleOS

>>975436

Imagine throwing away years of work, what was he thinking?

Oh btw what about haiku?

>>975438

haiku is also safe, so is netbsd

>>975439

Which of those has office?

I bet openBSD is the best out of those.

>>975431

because anti-sjws feel emboldened after having a white supremacist in office. They're hysterical because human decency is antithetical to their sociopathic existence. Literally why would you care about a CoC bringing hundreds if not thousands of competent female programmers to Linux unless you were afraid of your own competency being challenged or you're just a closeted, bigoted little shit.

>>975431

ps: do these people like legitimately go online thinking all the social hubs are no more than communities? some of them are legit, bona fide societies and demanding inclusion into places you couldn't go otherwise is not how the world works online or offline

>>975446

libreoffice has a code of conduct

>>975447

based

>>975451

Oh well its not like libreoffice can mess with the rest of the system...

or can it?

>>975454

lmao listen to yourself, so what you're scared of is that having a code of conduct will magically make bad code go in linux, and it will ruin everything?

>>975456

yeah those sjw will install backdoors so the government can spy on people using linux

<If you feel personally threatened by someone among the developer community, consult SAFETY.MD

>it's a step by step guide on how to contact your local police department

>>975458

>sjws can't code

>sjws will install backdoors

choose one

>sjws will install backdoors

do you even know what a code of conduct is? it doesn't automatically give someone ownership of the git repo, any git commits they make will be reviewed just like everything else, not to mention

>sjws are nsa

>implying

>government spying in linux

if this happens distros will use forks for the kernel like FSF endorsed distros already do over the non-free blobs

>>975462

They'll just get a cuck to install a backdoor

>>975463

what are you even talking about?

>>975464

If the sjw can get people to change the coc to suit their feelings they can change anything else to suit them.

Linux has been compromised.

RIP linux 1980's-2018

>>975447

because sjws feel emboldened after having a cuck in office. They're hysterical because human decency is antithetical to their sociopathic existence. Literally why would you care about a community bringing hundreds if not thousands of competent male programmers to Linux unless you were afraid of your own competency being challenged or you're just a closeted, bigoted little shit.

>>975448

ps: do these people like legitimately go online thinking all the tech hubs are no more than patriarchies? some of them are legit, bona fide societies and demanding inclusion into places you couldn't go otherwise is not how the world works online or offline

>>975470

>cuckchan filename

>>975472

>>975474

This is why the world needs more centrists!

#fuckmymouthandmyass

>>975388 (OP)

Code of Chiding

0. This is not your project. 
1. Fuck off. Besides your name and email, we don't give a shit about you.
2. Put up. Shit contributions will be met with appropriate criticism.
3. Learn it. Study acceptable contributions and save and time. 
4. Drop it. Politics has no place in production. 
5. Check it. Break your code so no else can. Accept patches.
6. Refine it. There may always a better way. Accept refinements.

>>975477

>My house is infested with termites

>That's why I shouldn't be pro termite

>>975462

your average backdoor is the worst shitcode you've ever seen

>>975482

>cuckchan filename

>>975489

>everyone is the same poster

>no one could possibly just be disgusted by your active use of cuckchan without remorse as you autisticly spam le ebig smug chinese cartoons

Glass houses

>>975495

well 1991 whatever

>>975495

>w-what do you mean you're not a degenerate cultural leech like me?

It's unfortunate that your old "cuckchan is an anime based forum!" bullshit doesn't work here, isn't it you insufferable retard? Day of the rope soon faggot.

>>975502

Ah yes, the good old "right wing SJW" autism. How dare you be expected to fix your own society instead of indulging in the media of another who can't even manage to keep their birth rates in check. You caught me, I'm just too concerned about your productivity and contributions towards your people to be a normal person. I must be an SJW who wants to preserve the sanctity of one of the single most xenophobic countries on the planet that just so happened to be apart of the fucking axis.

This is your brain on cuckchan everyone.

I thought this was about call of chernobyl, something actually important

*yawn*

>>975508

>actively discussing things on an online forum rather than just spamming inane pictures endlessly

what a fucking loser

>>975462

> it doesn't automatically give someone ownership of the git repo, any git commits they make will be reviewed just like everything else

Is this true guys?

I want this to be true...

>>975518

yeah there's no way a backdoor could get past github.

This is just some silly display for the sjws is all.

>>975388 (OP)

> I think we are stuck with having some code of conduct

<let's just cave in and appease the sjw's by giving them something and then they'll be nice and go away. this works great! it worked so well with gun rights and taxes and immigration and letting niggers use white bathrooms, let's do it so more!

LINUX MUST BURN

>>975525

>filename and hash don't match

What did you do to this file?

>>975524

Aaaaand right on queue we've got the corporate kikes divide and conquering smh

>>975388 (OP)

Having Code of Conduct is not bad by itself. CoC is just fancy SV word for thing that normal people call rules and almost every community has rules. What is bad about most CoCs is that they are written in a way that removes people who do not share same values as ultra-left SV people. Specially cancerous part is that CoC applies to ALL activities not just things that you post or say in community specific places. So, if you try to challenge leftist point of view of current political or social issues they will (try to) use that to remove you from software projects.

>>975535

>samefag still trying to recover from claiming the Linux kernel was developed in the 1980s

Not even safefag or defending him, just saying your going overboard spouting the same shit and derailing the entire thread with something so fucking insignificant

>>975388 (OP)

>Making a "less-bad" CoC

CoC based on Ten Commandments of Chivalry:

Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches and thou shalt observe all its directions.

Thou shalt defend the Church.

Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.

Thou shalt not recoil before thine bugs.

Thou shalt remove bugs in software without cessation and without mercy.

Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy programming duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.

Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.

Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.

Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry#Ten_Commandments_of_Chivalry

>>975564

Ok if they listen to her its over...

Here is one.

1. All code will be judged by merit alone. If it is not up to coding standard set by the panel, do not expect that the code will be expected.

2. Politieness is not an obligation. All speech is permitted with the exception of those not covered in US 1st Amendment (applied globally)

3. Subversion by government agencies and/or leftist organizations to override 1&2 are to be rejected with extreme rigor.

1: Don't dox anyone.

2: don't be a gaylord

That's all we need.

When a topic like this in a popular subreddit like /r/linux gets 1.3k upvotes, you know your viewpoint is not niche or unpopular at all:

>https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/9go8cp/linus_torvalds_daughter_has_signed_the/

That is important. It appears 8ch are part of the majority, for once.

>>975598

>walk into classroom

>DONT DOX ANYONE on the permanent part of the chalkboard

>turn 540 degrees and walk out

this how i know i stepped into some homo e-drama territory

>>975675

>blah blah blah transgender

>guerilla feminism

no, we are not associated with these LARPers. anyone who takes this seriously is LARPing too. how the fuck does the word transgender have anything whatsoever to do with the linux kernel?

>>975461

>not one of those comprehensive suicide how-to infographics

KDE has a pretty low-harm one. Judge for yourselves:

https://www.kde.org/code-of-conduct/

>>975451

Calligra doesn't. Or rather, it inherits KDE's one.

>>975456

If history is any predictor, yes.

>>975528

Aaaaand right on queue we've got the jew attempting to force acceptance for a compromise that isn't a compromise at all.

>just give us full auto's nobody needs that

>just give us SBRs nobody needs that

>just give us a 10 round magazine requirement nobody needs more than 10 rounds

<SEMI (((AUTOMATIC))) PISTOLS

>just switch to bolt action nobody needs (((automatic)))

>just get a license every wants licenses you don't want dangerous criminals getting them do you

>just accept that we're only giving licenses to 1% of people

>just accept that only military and police are getting weapons

never comprimise

/tech/ is going to get as hard /pol/ does with jews now.

>>975456

Poettering and his butt buddy Sievert use "harassment" and negativity as an excuse to push their shitty code all over the Linux ecosystem. It's already happened with systemd, pulseaudio, avahi, dbus, etc.

We need to specify that shit said OUTSIDE of the project isn't fair game.

Here's the main problem with CoC's, even very short ones:

Who the fuck enforces this shit?

You now have to _formally_ specify who holds the hammer over the other contributors heads. This changes the context significantly between all contributors, because now there is someone you can tattle too. (And not just "can tattle", but actively encouraged to do so)

The system of blocking somebody when they annoy you (but not attempting to force that block on everybody else) works well IMO, so there really is no need for CoC's in general.

What if we just say fuck it and abandon linux and convince devs to start focusing on GNU hurd? Would be cool to use this as a chance to give that project the attention it deserves.

>>976170

With HURD, if it ever gets compromised, it's at least easier to replace. It being a micro-kernel means only having to chop off the effected modules, and writing replacements that obey the kernel interface.

>>976172

My point exactly, plus with Stallman's comments promising no CoC for GNU it seems like this would be a much more interesting option than just forking linux. Drop linux entirely for a completely new (IMO Better) kernel and sidestep the attempted coup.

are we going to have to move to open Suse and other unix systems

You can always count on tech santa claus to do the right thing

>>975388 (OP)

>Why don't you want the guillotine?

>Ok fine we'll just cut one limb, of your choice!

Codifying human relations is shit. Learning about it is part of growing up.

>>976182

>having a codified right to an attorney is shit because personal injury claimants are all pussies

Yeah well, it beats trial by God's judgment which is what the CoC Beacon thing essentially is

you stupid niggers. so now you have code that has licenses and CoCs and the CoCs themselves have licenses

>This document is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution - Share Alike 3.0 License.

meant to quote >>975821

Rule 1 of CoC: There is no CoC

esr spoke:

>Most of you know that I have spent more than a quarter century analyzing the folkways of the hacker culture as a historian, ethnographer, and game theorist. That analysis has had large consequences, including a degree of business and mainstream acceptance of the open source way that was difficult to even imagine when I first presented "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" back in 1997.

>I'm writing now, from all of that experience and with all that perspective, about the recent flap over the new CoC and the attempt to organize a mass withdrawal of creator permissions from the kernel.

>I'm going to try to keep my personal feelings about this dispute off the table, not because I don't have any but because I think I serve us all better by speaking as neutrally as I can.

>First, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.'s opt-out of the "moral rights" clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an even stronger case.

>I urge that we all step back from the edge of this cliff, and I weant to suggest a basis of principle on which settlement can be negotiated.

>Before I go further, let me say that I unequivocally support Linus's decision to step aside and work on cleaning up his part of the process. If for no other reason than that the man has earned a rest.

>But this leaves us with a governance crisis on top of a conflict of principles. That is a difficult combination. Fortunately, there is lots of precedent about how to solve such problems in human history. We can look back on both tragic failures and epic successes and take lessons from them that apply here.

>To explain those lessons, I'm going to invite everybody to think like a game theorist for a bit.

>Every group of humans trying to sustain cooperation develops an ethos, set of norms. It may be written down. More usually it is a web of agreements that one has to learn by observing the behavior of others. The norms may not even be conscious; there's a famous result from experimental psychology that young children can play cooperative games without being able to articulate what their rules are...

>Every group of cooperating humans has a telos, a mutually understood purpose towards which they are working (or playing). Again, this purpose may be unwritten and is not necessarily even conscious. But one thing is always true: the ethos derives from the telos, not the other way around. The goal precedes the instrument.

>It is normal for the group ethos to evolve. It will get pulled in one direction or another as the goals of individuals and coalitions inside the group shift. In a well-functioning group the ethos tends to evolve to reward behaviors that achieve the telos more efficiently, and punish behaviors that retard progess towards it.

>It is not normal for the group's telos - which holds the whole cooperation together and underpins the ethos - to change in a significant way. Attempts to change the telos tend to be profoundly disruptive to the group, often terminally so.

>Now I want you to imagine that the group can adopt any of a set of ethoi ranked by normativeness - how much behavior they require and prohibit. If the normativeness slider is set low, the group as a whole will tolerate behavior that some people in it will consider negative and offensive. If the normativeness level is set high, many effects are less visible; contributors who chafe under restriction will defect (usually quietly) and potential contributors will be deterred from joining.

>If the normativeness slider starts low and is pushed high, the consequences are much more visible; you can get internal revolt against the change from people who consider the ethos to no longer serve their interests. This is especially likely if, bundled with a change in rules of procedure, there seems to be an attempt to change the telos of the group.

>>976454

cont.

>What can we say about where to set the slider? In general, the most successful - most inclusive - cooperations have a minimal ethos. That is, they are just as normative as they must be to achieve the telos, *and no more so*. It's easy to see why this is. Pushing the slider too high risks internal factional strife over value conflicts. This is worse than having it set too low, where consensus is easier to maintain but you get too little control of conflict between *individuals*.

>None of this is breaking news. We cooperate best when we live and let live, respecting that others may make different choices and invoking the group against bad behavior only when it disrupts cooperative success. Inclusiveness demands tolerance.

>Strict ethoi are typically functional glue only for small groups at the margins of society; minority regious groups are the best-studied case. The larger and more varied your group is, the more penalty there is for trying to be too normative.

>What we have now is a situation in which a subgroup within the Linux kernel's subculture threatens destructive revolt because not only do they think the slider been pushed too high in a normative direction, but because they think the CoC is an attempt to change the group's telos.

>The first important thing to get is that this revolt is not really about any of the surface issues the CoC was written to address. It would be maximally unhelpful to accuse the anti-CoC people of being pro-sexism, or anti-minority, or whatever. Doing that can only inflame their sense that the group telos is being hijacked. They make it clear; they signed on to participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards, and they think that is being taken way from them.

>One way to process this complaint is to assert that the CoC's new concerns are so important that the anti-CoC faction can be and should be fought to the point where they withdraw or surrender. The trouble with this way of responding is that it *is* in fact a hijacking of the group's telos - an assertion that we ought to have new terminal values replacing old ones that the objectors think they're defending.

>So a really major question here is: what is the telos of this subculture? Does the new CoC express it? Have the objectors expressed it?

>The question *not* to get hung up on is what any individual's choice in this matter says about their attitude towards, say, historically underepresented minorities. It is perfectly consistent to be pro-tolerance and pro-inclusion while believing *this* subculture ought to be all about producing good code without regard to who is offended by the process. Not every kind of good work has to be done everywhere. Nobody demands that social-justice causes demonstrate their ability to write C.

>That last paragraph may sound like I have strayed from neutrality into making a value claim, but not really. It's just another way of saying that different groups have different teloi, and different ethoi proceeding from them. Generally speaking (that is, unless it commits actual crimes) you can only judge a group by how it fulfills its own telos, not those of others.

>So we come back to two questions:

>1. What is our telos?

>2. Given our telos, do we have the most inclusive (least normative) ethos possible to achieve it?

>When you have an answer to that question, you will know what we need to do about the CoC and the "killswitch" revolt.

>>976454

>>976456

Judging from his comments (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8139), he's trying to mind-trick (((them))).

<You are trying to be non-confrontational to someone who is coming at you with a knife

>You fail to understand my strategy. You’ll probably figure it out if you think for a bit.

<Have you considered that maybe “hijacking of the group’s telos” is the whole point of the CoC?

>Of course it is.

<If that were so, do you really think that appealing to reason is going to work?

>To the hardcore SJWs? No. It won’t. They’re essentially Trotsyite/Maoist about this; what they can’t subvert they’ll cheerfully destroy, counting it as a win that they’ve eliminated a nucleus of resistance. I’m not writing to them.

>I’m really surprised you guys haven’t figured out what I’m doing yet. Does the phrase “Peel away the moderates” give you enough of a clue? That’s not all of it; there’s another layer.

<You have to go lateral, attacking other low-level hooks to dislodge the malignancy; I suspect this is specifically Eric’s goal with this post.

>One of them. Efficient cultural engineering invokes as many mutually-reinforcing mechanisms as possible.

From PS YOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory

-by-

Major Michael A. Aquino PSYOP Research & Analysis Team Leader

The advantage of Mind War is that it conducts wars in nonlethal, noninjurious, and

nondestructive ways. Essentially you overwhelm your enemy with argument. [...]

Everyone is happy, no one gets hurt or killed, and nothing is destroyed.

The first thing it is necessary to overcome is a view of PSYOP that limits it to routine,

predictable, over-obvious, and hence marginally effective "leaflet and loudspeaker"

applications.

In its strategic context, MindWar must reach out to friends, enemies, and neutrals alike across the globe - neither through primitive "battlefield" leaflets and loudspeakers of PSYOP nor through the weak, imprecise, and narrow effort of psychotronics - but through the media possessed by the United States which have the capabilities to reach virtually all people on the face of the Earth. These media are, of course, the electronic media - television and radio. State of the art developments in satellite communication, video recording techniques, and laser and optical transmission of broadcasts make possible a penetration of the minds of the world such as would have been inconceivable just a few years ago.

MindWar must target all participants if it is to be effective.

Michael Aquino and Coery Dale Ehmke both live in the Chicago area, both '"study'" thelema and both are obnoxious shills.

>>976505

*Corey

we are not stuck with having a code of conduct. this is damage control

>>975388 (OP)

>At this point, I think we are stuck with having some code of conduct.

No.

You don't give one iota to these bastards. Not one Planck unit. If you do they keep coming back over and over and take everything from you a nibble at a time.

>>976625

I see no reason why you cannot use their own tools against them by having an "immunity CoC".

>>975388 (OP)

CoC is the camel's nose. You let this shit in and now it will take over.

>>We're not getting out of having a CoC,but maybe we can replace the current one with something less awful.

You are just trying to negotiate the terms of your surrender now.

>>975427

Clause 3 is not GPL-compatible.

>>975447

Not everyone gives a fuck about nu/pol/'s insane race politics bullshit, but that still doesn't make the CoC bullshit acceptable. There is no reason to attack meritocracy unless you lack merit but demand a strong voice anyway, in which case, go fuck yourself, especially when this is a development project, and not a goddamn podium. CoCs are all about introducing bullshit politics and SJW witch hunts into projects. There is a reason why projects that go SJW suffer from devs leaving and no longer contributing.

The "wider audience" myth can also go fuck itself. Not only does diversity pandering fail hard in general (and in the case of FreeBSD it has been proven to result in open disaster), but this is kernel development where you need seriously capable programmers, not a mass of mediocre idiots thirsting for participation awards, so pandering (least of all SJW pandering) is fundamentally not the right approach to attract talent. The kernel's goal is to have the best code, which brings us back to why meritocracy is the only sane way to handle kernel development. The original method did not exclude women. It only excluded incompetents and/or drama queens. If you wish to argue that excluding incompetence and/or drama queens is the barrier that excludes women from kernel development to sell your case on why it needs a retarded CoC, then that says plenty about your views and why I do not give a fuck for any of that shit.

>>975453

Astroturfing doesn't work, mate. You're not from around here.

>>975456

SJWs are already trying to kick out Linus Torvalds himself and Theodore Ts'o out of kernel development for not being sufficiently positive of their bullshit. If you think stupid witch hunts of kernel devs are how we improve the Linux project, then you are a fucking idiot. It's plainly obvious that supporting this kind of bullshit has a severely detrimental effect on the code quality of the project.

>>975478

Not bad, although "accept refinements" sounds like a great way to induce development hell because people are fixing what wasn't broken.

>>975564

Intellectual suffocation of the worst kind.

>>976841

It's also proof the SJW are only useful idiots.

>>975547

>>>/cuck/

>>975564

All this energy expended to spy on and control an entire population..

Reminds me of what an anon said WMDs are actually for.

>>976820

Kill yourself cuck

>>975675

Better: https://snew.github.io/r/linux/comments/9go8cp/linus_torvalds_daughter_has_signed_the/

It's fun looking at the comments that got deleted by moderators. Spoiler alert: they're deleting perfectly good posts (look for PM_ME_UR_PGP_PRIVKEY in particular) because they didn't like what he was saying.

>>975388 (OP)

>We're not getting out of having a CoC

That is why you have already lost. Now bow down to your new SJW masters.

Rule 1. The Code of Conduct is not subject for change.

stop overthinking this

>>976150

Amen.

New Linux Code of Conduct

1) All devs must kill at least one mountain lion every week.

2) All devs must have sex with a nubile 14-year-old girl every day.

3) All devs must demonstrate the capability to solve the halting problem while snorting coke off a hooker's ass.

4) No blacks.

5) The dev responsible for donut and pizza procurement will be switched on a rotating basis.

6) The best band ever is Daft Punk.

>>977010

>JavaScript is required to use Snew

No.

New Linux CoCless Guidelines

1) You don't need a CoC to submit code.

2) We don't give a fuck who your fucking or not fucking. And we don't care what under your clothes.

3) No one cares about your feelings. All that matters is the work. Its just a little free speech in the form of air vibrations and fonts, grow the fuck up.

4) Life is short. Watch your lane and have a goddamn blast doing it.

5) Just let it slide.

6) Pffft. Tool is the best band ever.

Better:

Linux Code of Null

1) Rejoice! you can now submit code without fear of censure.

2) You are worth nothing, No one wastes time on censuring a void.

3) Your code may one day be part of something magnificent, This

is why we allow you to contribute. Be content with this, The proof

The universe might not have wasted the effort.

At this point in time, Google Fuchsia has a better CoC than Linux

https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/docs/+/HEAD/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

>>979305

>community discussions should be about features and code, not the individuals involved.

Oh fuck off rightysoy. People only code to get recognized by their peers.

>>979306

Coding for fame? I find myself contributing mostly just to make shit work so my job is easier in the long run. Nothing more annoying that having to work around the same goddamn bug over and over again. Are you a slave to others? Maybe a career in acting or music might be a better future timeline choice.

>>979305

And fuck that noise.

>>979306

No, a lot of us code because if you want a job done right, you do it yourself. A lot of us are do-it-yourselfers in general. I don't rightly understand why people would become programmers if programming itself holds no appeal to them.

>>979269

tool is meh. here are some better progs, because CoC threads are gay anyway

spiral architect - a spectic's universe

twisted into form - then comes affliction to awaken the dreamer

sieges even - steps

secrecy - art in motion

zero hour

mekong delta

cynic

anubis gate

watchtower

andromeda

pain of salvation

wastefall

at least some of these should be accessible for a toolfag

>>979306

>Oh fuck off rightysoy. People only code to get recognized by their peers.

People who think like this should get shot, or at least beaten down until they either fix their attitude or fuck off. People like that overwhelmingly produce shit code and are only motivated towards participation awards, not code quality, and because of that they inflict a horrid technical debt that the people who come after have to clean up.

I wrote this as a post before realizing there was already a thread for it:

Identity politics is a system of exploitation which spreads through peer pressure. It is so viral and poisonous because anyone who fights identity politics by trying to delegitimize it ends up pigeonholing their own views through the critical lens of identity. In doing so, the lensee becomes subject to whatever social pressure the lenser wants to inflict, which the lenser almost always exploits by criticizing the person instead of their ideas, thus permanently marking them and anyone who continues to associate with them as an untouchable. It is a dangerous game. If you were to play it, no matter what you would do, you would lose every time. So don't play it: instead, remove their ability to use those axioms just as they removed the ability for you to use axioms such as meritocracy. Once you make the playing field level, people will realize just how weak the ideas of one who engages in identity politics are.

I am bringing this up now because Cory's short CoC slithered up into the intestinal tracts of innocent projects which I and more importantly most others use. It was a very clever scheme, and in fact it is the same scheme these people use in real life. A CoC does not affect what you can do with the code ("You are allowed to have free speech"), but it isolates you as a wrongthinker from the community ("but you aren't allowed to have free speech in this private institution"). We as people who value quality code and our rights of not being doxxed and isolated for incorrect opinions have been very passive in lying down and taking this.

The important question now is how do we stop the spread. I would like to propose an alternative code of conduct whose first goal is to focus on the quality of the code and whose second goal is to deny a platform for identity politics while still allowing for freedom of opinion (really, those goals are one and the same). This policy should be similar to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy in that any mention of distinguishing identity of anyone as an individual, such as but not limited to: race, gender, or mental or physical ability; will result in a kick and repeated offenses will result in a ban. If the discussion medium you use does not have kicks/bans, then use the equivalent. This is a policy which does not have any room for interpretation, and cannot be reasonably decried as racist or sexist as it treats everyone equally (which is how it should be advertised to SJWs). Instead of Code of Conduct, it should be called the Equality Policy, to really drive the point home that it is fighting for the safety and security of minorities by removing white-, man- and any other form of -splaining.

This is a rhetorical battle, and it is one that can be won if you're all shrewd enough.

If this post goes over well, I will produce a rough draft of the Equality Policy and some of my thoughts on how to reverse the damage in large, already established products such as Python and Linux, or if that fails, how to create what I call a "social fork".

Stay strong, brothers.

>>979813

My shitty attempt at writing using the CoC Layout.

Contributor Guidelines

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Our Pledge

======

In the interest of fostering an open and welcome environment, we pledge

to make participation for both contributors and maintainers a pleasant

experience as can be expected. We understand that a community this large

with people from all walks of life will have disagreements, but can pull

together for success in achieving a common goal.

Our Standards

=========

Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment

Include:

* Experienced maintainers taking responsibility of guiding contributors while showing constraint.

* Experienced maintainers should take the time to explain why certain actions were taken so contributors can learn.

* Experienced maintainers should offer constructive criticism and avoid personal attacks.

* New contributors should realize that they may not know the full picture and accept constructive criticism.

* New contributors should realize that people may be busy and what is important to you may not be as high up on the priority list as other areas. Give it time.

* Free speech should be defended. Be tolerant and thick skinned as both introverts and extroverts have different ways of communicating which will always clash. Actions speak louder than words.

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:

* Maintainers blocking changes without explanation.

* Maintainers blocking changes that is not related to the change itself.

* Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission

* Coding for fame. We are all hear to make a better product to improve ours and others daily lives. Wasting

everyone's time and effort with unneeded changes to get your name out there is helping no-one.

* New contributors not listening to the advice of the experienced.

* New contributors not learning from mistakes. This can take up everyone's time and can lead to esculated tension on both ends.

Our Responsibilities

================

Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject

commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not

aligned with the betterment of the project. Any banning should be directed

only to those to work to harm or hamper a projects success as there will

always be bad actors.

Scope

=

These guidelines should be the goal of anyone contributing to the project or

part of the community as a whole.

Enforcement

=======

As these are guidelines, no "Enforcement" is needed. Its up to each business or

organization that has paid contributors to set up their own professional guidelines

and take action against these individuals internally. The community outside of these

entities should feel free to contribute as they see fit while trying as best as

they can to follow the guidelines.

Warning

===

Beware of past and future attempts to install rules and regulations that hinder free speech period.

It has been proven as a tool in the past to bully others out of the community unjustly.

This guy has the right ideas: https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=nND3EYzIONg

>>980309

Thanks, that talk is perfect. The blog has some good nuggets as well: http://paul-m-jones.com/

>>975446

NetBSD is better, OpenBSD doesn't even have proper SMP support

>>976964

>>>/brainlet/

>>980337

>PHP guy

> Code of Conduct:

> 1) There is and never will be a code of conduct.

> This code of conduct will be strictly enforced.

There, a CoC that gives you grounds for banning anyone who even mentions a code of conduct.

>>975528

He's right, though. The idea of "compromise", to a leftist, means nothing but "I'm going to take some of what I want now and be back for the rest later, since you just showed me that you don't have the nuts to stop me from taking what I want".

I wonder if a better solution might be to set up a framework in projects to make it easy for contributors be anonymous for those who want it. This would get rid of any argument of bias.