Thiago, Here's a link that kinda puts it together: https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252/ (Scroll to "The Controversy" and the "rape apologist" Sage Sharp tweet)
I didn't realize this was a thing of "defeat". I have concerns, based on actual events, that I want resolved. I do respectfully disagree on whether or not an author is relevant to considering a work. In this case the author has a track record of attacking members in open source projects and arguing against meritocracy. Is the text good? There is a lot I agree with, but there are things in it that cross the line for me. I think we can come to an agreement, but not with invoking the Covenant in its current form. > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM > From: "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macie...@intel.com> > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct > > On Friday, 26 October 2018 09:48:11 PDT Jason H wrote: > > My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially and > > solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned that it > > was drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor removed > > [2] from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong with > > respect to the project or the project's community. She constructed a claim > > of "transphobia" based on a tweet the contributor wrote in no way relating > > to the project at hand, and slandered the project for not expunging them. > > My mind is made up: the Contributor Covenant is a tool of oppression. > > First of all, the kernel adoption of CoC was not a fiasco. All the negative > emails you may have seen came from people who are not contributors, often > their first and only email to the mailing list. Despite what Eric Raymond has > said, revoking the copyright licence for GPL just cannot be done -- it would > be against GPL's spirit. > > Coraline's intentions are irrelevant. What matters is the text: is it good? > > But if your mind is made up, kindly refrain from trying to convince others to > change their minds too. This is a two-way street and you're only welcome to > argue your point if you're willing to admit defeat too. > > > The specific sentence in the Covenant is: > > "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public > > spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community." > > > > However, despite being the author of the Covenant (2014), she found it > > appropriate to attack someone who was clearly not operating in a project > > space or representing the project community (2015). We now have two > > examples - the linux Kernel and Opal project, that after CC was enacted > > that calls for removal of members based on past unrelated tweets went out. > > One of the problems its politics and political climates change over time. > > Expressing what is not political at one point in time may become political > > in subsequent years. People's minds also change over time. > > What is the kernel example? Who was forced out, or attempted to? > > > I urge you to read link[3] below and see if we want that kind of attention. > > It summarizes what happens when the CC has been adopted by other projects. > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant > > [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 > > [3] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/ > > I have. > > The proponents of the removal were arguing that having such a person as a > project leader is poisonous to the project, *regardless* of the fact that it > was done in private time, because it would turn away potential new > contributors as they didn't want to associate with such a person. This is an > extreme situation, indeed, and one that the CoC committee should be able to > make a judgement on: which way is the project best served? > > Anyway, given that the request to get the maintainer removed was not > accepted, > how is that a failure of the CoC? Isn't it showing that it's *working*? > > I personally think those situations explain why we need a CoC in the first > place and why the judgment on such situations is very subjective, best left > to > humans, not to a script. And the deliberations should not be in a public > forum, like a GitHub issue. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
