Here is a good starting point to research the critique of this document: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#note-6 . Its point is particularly apt:

> Given a choice between only two extremes, I'd far rather have Linus Torvalds telling me I'm an idiot and my code is shit, then exist in an offense taking culture where various forms of criticism are re-branded as "harassment."

However, the Linux copy has cut one of the more malicious paragraphs: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...

I would like to extend this point: "I'd rather have Linus Torvalds telling me I'm an idiot and my code is shit, than ... releasing kernel with my shitty code and EVERYONE thinking that I'm an idiot".

But this is a false dichotomy.

They could just refuse your code without calling you an idiot.

Of course there exist examples of Linus calling or even implying that individual people / organisations are "idiots" and they are wrong (and he has acknowledged this). But in the vast majority of cases the criticism is aimed at the code itself and I genuinely don't see the issue with this.

Neither do I

> ... releasing kernel with my shitty code and EVERYONE thinking that I'm an idiot

Or, "releasing kernel with my shitty code and ruining the day for a lot of people."

I believe the biggest worry is that the CoC is loosely worded, but gives lots of power for removing people from the community that don't abide by the too-loose rules.

This leads people to fear that contributors, some of them long-term, may be removed because of things like political views, even if they don't come up in a mailing list discussion, or if they were said by the person 30 years ago on Usenet.

A lot of other people feel it wrongly shifts the focus from code-quality to political correctness and feelings, which are far harder to measure objectively. See paragraph 1.

I see. I agree that any such code of conduct should be limited to communications involving the project directly, and be the minimal set of rules necessary to ensure civility.

"Communications involving the project directly" is a good goal, but is ambiguous when e.g. one developer is belittling another in a semi-related forum like their personal Twitter account where they regularly have technical conversations, their HN account, etc. If (hypothetically) Linus were to be nice and polite on LKML, and reply to tweets about bugs saying "Yes, that's a bug, the developer should be retroactively aborted," I think we'd still not have solved the problem of people not wanting to contribute because they don't want to subject themselves to that.

I do agree on the other hand that digging up 30-year-old Usenet posts would tend to just get everyone in trouble and a code-of-conduct process should ignore them, or at most provide ample opportunity to distance oneself from those statements and then go with what's said today.

My preferred solution is to make sure the party handling the code of conduct process is someone who seems level-headed and likely to use their judgment well. It means you move away from codified rules, but it also means rules can't be gamed. For Linux the enforcement body is the Technical Advisory Board, which I think is a little weird precisely because it's a technical body and not necessarily a good-at-people one, but we can see how it goes. For small projects the enforcement body is typically the project founder, and if you don't think the founder will handle things reasonably, no code of conduct can make them trustworthy.

Your example isn’t that ambiguous, that’s a public communication directly about the project. That should be covered by the CoC.

However unrelated statements, even very politically incorrect ones, should be outside it’s remit. If for example someone was a virulent racist on twitter. That’s arguably a bad thing, but those statements are unrelated to the project and should have no bearing on contributions to it.

(Now that’s going to be an unpopular sentiment. Downvotes ahead.)

No downvotes from this guy here. I work with some terrible engineers who I wouldn't trust to design a tire pressure gauge but they're pleasant to be around. On the other hand, I've worked with world class engineers who are abrasive as hell but still write/design good gear. Code shouldn't have a thing to do with their political leanings. To quote an old OpenBSD saying: "shut up and hack".

So what do you do in the unlikely event that someone who's a target of the racism is interested in contributing to the project?

Does "shut up and hack" apply to telling them to keep their racism to themselves?

(I realize you didn't say anything about racism, but you replied supportively to a comment about it, so I'm not sure where you stand.)

Then you’re into territory where the CoC controls everything that a contributor says on every platform, as another contributor can always claim some indirect harm.

Always? All sorts of speech cause indirect harm to someone, analogous to "virulent racism"?

If that's really true, doesn't "shut up and hack" apply all the more? If you really cared about the code, you could keep your political opinions to yourself.

(Also, this is precisely why many codes of conduct define the exact harms they care about - so racism is an excluded harm, but, say, making Hans Reiser feel bad about being a murderer isn't. If you're a fan of racism, you might use this as an indicator to avoid the project and find another one, or fork it under the license.)

Which is all just censorship by the back door. With the possible implied accusation of racism aimed at me. I’ll spare both of us the usual freedom of speech rationales, I assume you’ve heard them before. It seems from your posts that you personally really do wish to use CoCs as a tool of wide-ranging ideological enforcement, exactly as their detractors fear. Or have I misinterpreted you?

However on forking I do tend to agree. There appears to be an audience for projects with less controlling, or less ideologically intended rules. These projects should be formed and developers should make their own choice between them.

The CoC can be used as a stick by Linux Foundation platinum members to get a grip on more outspoken maintainers. That way they can put more generic programmers who are used to corporate "professional" culture on the kernel.

Linux means big money now, you can't leave that in the hands of the rabble.

Seems to have worked just fine so far.

Someone has stated their worries on the LKML: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/19/234

> Some elements of the Code are unobjectionable; sexual advances, for instance, have no place on the lkml (though they may at, say, a conference, and not everyone can reliably predict whether they are unwelcome)'

I feel like one of the neat things about a code of conduct is it provides cleanly defined answers for people who are genuinely unsure whether sexual advances are welcome at professional conferences.

>it provides cleanly defined answers for people who are genuinely unsure whether sexual advances are welcome at professional conferences.

So chatting at the convention center bar with other attendees falls outside CoC scope?

Or are you saying that the clearly defined "no" exists exclusively for the kind of people that would be unsure, while the answer remains "yes" for people who are self-assured?

The clearly defined "no" should exist for both. If a code of conduct does not apply to everyone, it's simply another tool for those confident in their status and power to do what they want and the rest to watch helplessly—which is the entire problem being solved by codes of conduct in the first place.

(A fear that a code of conduct will not be applied equitably without regard of persons is an entirely valid reason to object to one.)

Life is messy and indistinct. 1 out of 7 couples meet via work...

it's just one of many fronts in the ongoing culture war. Allegedly, progressive activists are pushing CoCs onto open source projects and other people are opposed to this. Obviously, you'll get different explanations for the motivations involved by asking different parties so I can't speak to that objectively.

People who don't have the ability to create and maintain the quality of the linux kernel seeking to have power, via social, political and economic ostracism, over those who do actually have the skills and competence to do so.

From reading peoples' complaints, they're worried that the CoC can/will be used to beat "problematic" developers into submission and reduce their ability to speak and discuss freely.

I think it's completely overblown. If a person's ability to discuss software development requires them to belittle others for their sexuality or political observation or gender or anything else not related to software development, then they should feel unwelcome and they should make a hasty exit from the community.

The CoC makes room for everyone except serial harassers. If a person can't work on professional terms as part of a larger development community, they should go somewhere else and probably work on their own instead.

The problem arises when "belittlement" or harassment is defined by someone's feelings rather than any objective, specific standard.

Which is exactly why there's a board, requiring 2/3rds majority in a vote, after reviewing the evidence in question. A person cannot simply accuse people they don't like and get them excluded for breaching the CoC. It doesn't work that way.

And harassment/belittelment is always a question of feelings. You can't set up a clear concise objective standard. It's a case by case thing.

> a board, requiring 2/3rds majority in a vote

So instead of merely depending on the feelings of the accuser, it depends on the feelings of two thirds of the board? That's not much better. You can make objective rules that are not subject to feelings, you just have to be willing to not please everyone. When you don't have objective rules, people are less likely to participate in the game because people can't be sure that they aren't breaking a rule.

The board has a set of rules, that is the CoC. However as in any case where people are involved, they will have to deliberate and discuss to reach a conclusion.

Perfectly normal.

If you have a set of strict objective rules, some people will find a way to game them, and still harass people.