R-T-BI like more than sometimes. I like to at least break 50%.

I think his "lies" are the type that are self-deceiving, if anything. I mean, I think he actually believes some of it and/or doesn't like being negative about himself especially. But I don't think he lies in a direct manner. He's pretty damn blunt, to the point of making people's heads explode. You can't have it both ways.. where he's a liar and an asshole at the same time :D

FordGT90ConceptIt's Flake that needs to be on the pedestal. He single-handedly got an FBI investigation and delayed the vote a week because he was the deciding vote to proceed. Flake's a Republican from Arizona. This is his last term because one-term was apparently enough for him. That's off-topic though.


I do think the meat of the topic has been discussed in full. The ball is in the Linux Foundation's court.

What do you mean the "ball"? I doubt they're going to say anything. They're going to quietly push their [corporate...not sjw] agenda now that Linus is out of their way. And no one can do a thing about it.

I think the debacle with systemd is a good indicator of things to come (something Linus tried to prevent.. and kicked the creator off of kernel submissions once). More and more bloated and intrusive, non-UNIX like tools, less and less configuration. It'll probably behave more and more like Mac or Windows (launchd and svchost.exe). But that said, I'm already a happy Windows user as it is. I don't need another one.

R-T-BBut regardless, my point was his twitter feed is intentionally divisive and very "us vs them." There really is no denying that.

Same tactic is used in Venezuela, and in the... let's call it "extreme left wing" of the past administration here (more like thieves and drug lords). Looks like Trump and Maduro/Cuba think alike.

StrayKATHe's pretty damn blunt, to the point of making people's heads explode.

Yep. And that was really my main point.

I don't think so. The left is the "us vs them" movement. They even call themselves the "RESIST" movement. Trump is barely even a Republican. He was a Democrat once. And he's argued for things the Left should get behind -- like regulating the banks again. But since they RESIST, they won't even meet him. All they say is "Impeach 45!" Nancy Pelosi even refuses to say his name. lol.

It's kind of a misnomer to call them the Left though. They're all magically multi-millionaires once they get into office. Pelosi is worth hundreds of millions. Their salaries don't come near that.. so where is the money coming from?

GoldenXUSA members, you realise the sh*tstorm this is turning to be in your country, right? From outside, it looks so stupid, it's barely believable.
Also, third world country with free health and education, f*ck yeah.

Oh, it is not free and it is not working the moment US steps in. All the communists that expect *free* publicization of copyrighted books to confiscation of rights by public jurisdiction, it is not hard to spot the hysterical from its behaviour alone. They even reach for vocabulary already present in literature, but fail at reading it. What a joke!

I think America could very well pay for more social programs... but the sacrifice would be military spending. Not a good idea if you want America to also be the global post WW2 guardian (that everyone BOTH hates it for and begs it to do at the same time..and which it inevitably fails at for the most part). The irony is that if Trump got his way and America increasingly became more isolationist, they could easily drop the military expenses in favor of domestic programs. They could watch from afar while China ravishes the rest of the world. Or whoever.

R-T-BI'm 31

I didn't even go to college until 27. Didn't finish until 34. LOL

R-T-Baving studied Russia and such, I'd argue Russia (or Putin, rather) is very much looking to weaken us through a social campaign designed to divide us along ideological lines.

I have to disagree on this. A strong US and a strong Russia are 'good' for both countries 'politically' as it drives spending (mostly defense). Neither Russia or the US want to go to war with each other. Most likely, each (US and Russia) are actively working on preventing their allies from fucking things up and starting WW3.

mtcn77Oh, it is not free and it is not working the moment US steps in. All the communists that expect *free* publicization of copyrighted books to confiscation of rights by public jurisdiction, it is not hard to spot the hysterical from its behaviour alone. They even reach for vocabulary already present in literature, but fail at reading it. What a joke!

Spend less on bullets, more on the obligations of an state to it's citizens.

GoldenXSpend less on bullets, more on the obligations of an state to it's citizens.

That is what separates the US from many other nations. The US was designed that the government would protect you from foreign states and provide you an equal opportunity - not necessarily an equal outcome.

The fact of the matter is, our country rewards those who take initiative, have desire, and perseverance. If you do not want to make an effort and live off the backs of others, it won't be that pleasant.

Whether or not the US government is doing a good job of that is up for debate.

EDIT: FWIW, there is a lot of diversity in this country. Probably people from every country on Earth. Everyone can't be happy at the same as it is simply impossible to have diametrically opposed view points to both be happy. In any case, the best we can do is be respectful to each other about each other's views and opinions. The level of salt in this country is unacceptable no matter 'which side' you are on. Just because you do not agree with socialized medicine and education, open boarders, and treating people with more money than you with respect does not make one a racist, nazi, or anything else. Conversely, people being empathetic to immigrants (albeit, illegal) or anything else on the 'socialism' scale does not mean they deserve the vitriol they receive either.

If people on each aisle could take a second and calm down and approach issues like in this thread with a drop of maturity, we would be ok.

FordGT90ConceptYour scenario would imply that someone on the TAB is the asshole. In which case, Code of Conflict/Code of Conduct is the same (it's handed off to another member of the TAB to render judgement).

If a maintainer isn't doing their job then someone on TAB would deal with the situation.

If this is the case:
a) Why would anyone bother to argue for implementing a new code, and
b) Why would anyone vote for it?

And, well, is it such a fundamental impossibility for someone on the TAB to be an asshole/not understand how one goes about giving constructive feedback that creating rules for such an eventuality is actually bad? 'Cause that's what you're arguing. I'm not given the impression (other than by the "ZOMG A DEVELOPER PURGE IS COMING" tone of the initial news piece here, which ... well, didn't quite come off as believable) that these rules will be used unless, you know, there's a reason for them to be used. Which is how rules work, incidentally.

FordGT90ConceptThe "fairness" component is opinion derived from the action the TAB member took and highly contextual.

Well, of course it is. Have I been saying otherwise? And, regardless of that, how is this in any way an argument against clarifying rules in case situations like this should arise?

FordGT90ConceptThe meritocracy isn't going away. How the best code gets determined isn't changing.

Again: is anyone arguing for this? Guess I should start a straw man argument count. So far: 2.

FordGT90ConceptFreedom of speech goes hand-in-hand with the right to be heard. Why the sudden surge of extreme right activists? Because of the surge in the extreme left activists. One rises in anger to counter the arguments of the other. Listening is the first step to addressing the problem.

No. Nobody has a right to be heard. That's ludicrous. "A right to be heard" means you're effectively arguing for forcing people to listen to those they don't want to. While this would indeed be sensible in quite a few situations (as a theoretical means of avoiding polarization), it would be an entirely unenforceable rule, not to mention likely unconstitutional in the US as well as quite a few other countries. And if the ideology you're promoting says that some people are worth less than others, you don't deserve to be heard by anyone. Period. Or do you believe that public discourse shouldn't be a meritocracy?

And actually, you're wrong in the chronology here. Right-wing activists have been on the rise, particularly in the US, for several decades. It's only in recent years that the US has had a political left at all, ideologically speaking, which is mostly due to the government persecution of radical leftists in the 1950s, -60s and 70s (and the immense effect of "anti-communist" propaganda on US culture and society). The Democratic party is still, and has traditionally been on the right or centre-right.

FordGT90ConceptWatch the video. They address this very point. TL;DW: you're wrong. The meteoric shift is on the left (especially in schools and campuses). Movement on the right is retaliatory (Trump getting elected is the most visible example). The fanatical population on the right are likely in the 10s of thousands (talking the people brandishing swastikas, KKK, etc.). Fanatical population on the left is in the 100s of thousands or millions (talking SJW, ELF, BLE, Anti-Fa, etc.).

One problem here: the organizations you list mostly aren't left-wing organisations. Let's go point by point.

• SJW is a poorly defined slur used to ridicule anyone and everyone fighting for social justice, particularly online or in tech-related fields, and encompasses people across most of the political spectrum. The only common ideology here is disliking social injustice.
• ELF - I assume you mean the Earth Liberation Front? Had to google that. At least according to Wikipedia, they don't have an overarching ideology beyond action-based "eco-resitsance". Even if their members' ideologies hew to the left, that doesn't mean that the organization is itself left-wing. Also kind of weird to bring up a tiny fringe group like this.
• BLE - you mean BLM? I'll assume that, as I doubt you're referencing the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. As Wikipedia tells us: "The phrase "Black Lives Matter" can refer to a Twitter hashtag, a slogan, a social movement, or a loose confederation of groups advocating for racial justice." In other words, it's not a cohesive movement, but an ideologically diverse one, with the fight for racial justice as a common point of reference. Makes it difficult to classify it as "left-wing".
• Antifa is ... well, first off (as most of the movements listed here) a decentralized and leaderless movement without a fixed ideology, though they seem more cohesive than the others in their beliefs and tactics. While one can argue that anarchism isn't a left-wing ideology (mainly due to the left-right axis being a gross oversimplification which entirely fails to encompass that politics encompasses more than a single variable), calling them that still fits reasonably well. However, as the name itself tells us, this is not an organization that would - or could - have appeared if there weren't actual fascists for them to fight. That's kind of a given, no? Saying "the far right has surged due to the appearance of organizations such as Antifa" is rather absurd. It's like saying messy food was invented because we had too many napkins.

FordGT90ConceptBold go to the police. Underline depends on context but it may be covered under freedom of speech. If you don't feel safe going to the police then that's an institutional problem that need to be addressed (a lot of districts are actively working on it). Underlined could be covered under Department of Labor or consultation with a lawyer. Generally though, it's just humans being humans.

To the last point: sure. The thing is, human behaviour is immensely flexible, changeable, and to a large degree under our conscious control. In other words: "humans being humans" is a cheap, lazy, fatalist excuse for not wanting to bother with trying to make the world a better place. If you don't want to do that, that's fine too - just please stop actively standing in the way of people who do want to do that, and are willing to put in the effort.

An example: in most of the Western world, society is far less violent today than it was only a few decades ago. Is this random? Is this due to chance, or because of some fundamental change to human nature? Is this evolution? No. It's due to society evolving, our culture evolving, towards viewing violence in a much more negative light, and at least as importantly, towards not glorifying violence. Has this change happened by chance? No. It has come to pass due to political activism, anti-violence and anti-war campaigns, as well as a more general focus on dialogue, understanding and respect as more effective and productive means of problem-solving. One thing it can't be attributed to is the growth of the US prison system and mass incarceration, as the development is shared across other countries as well. But the low-level public shift in the view of violence as "a fact of life" to "unacceptable in the vast majority of situations" is both indisputable fact as well as a result of political activism. What "humans being humans" means is very, very, very much subject to change.

But to get back to the point here: if it was as simple as "the police can fix most of this, and the rest has other mechanisms already in place", this wouldn't be an issue up for discussion still. What is being said here is that the current means of enforcement and regulation are insufficient and ineffective. You argue vehemently against this, without any evidence to support this claim, and against mountains of evidence showing us that, for example, making workplace harassment illegal or grounds for dismissal alone in no way whatsoever removes the problem or causes people's behaviour to change. And it's quite logical that when your first attempt at fixing a problem doesn't work, you try something new, no? Or is your stance really that "we tried to fix it once, and it didn't work, so we should just give up"? When have humans ever made the best solution to a problem on the first attempt?

FordGT90ConceptIf you really have need of a "safe space," that's what they call a "restraining order." It travels with you. Much better. ;)

Good luck getting a restraining order over workplace harassment ...

You argue that the important thing (in this case) is producing good code. Producing good code in an organization necessitates that that organization functions smoothly, including providing useful and relevant feedback and constructive criticism. Group psychology and management research has demonstrated through extensive research that while a certain level of "conflict" is useful and productive, particularly in creative fields, this is limited to very specific forms of conflict, and requires said conflict to be effectively managed and moderated within a commonly understood framework with clearly defined means of resolving conflict, and in particular requires the conflict to never, ever become personal. If those prerequisites are not in place, conflict is immensely counterproductive.

AquinusI don't accept PRs if I don't feel that it's a good idea and I'm increasingly harsh if brain-dead decisions are made. I have to agree with @FordGT90Concept on this one. If you do something really stupid (like branching off a branch that I actively didn't merge because of the issues, then making a PR for your code off that branch,) then yeah, I'm going to call the dev out on it. Either the dev didn't know what they were doing which is a problem or the dev actively knew what he was doing which is also a problem. Torvalds' is an asshole but, the things he complains about and rants about tend to have merit.

If you do something stupid that's going to impact every user and every contributor, I have no problem saying "what the f**k were you thinking?" In fact, I saw one like that yesterday where if I accepted it, it would have broke the build because the moron merged the wrong branch into their own with a bunch of stuff that's unrelated to their work and is also half broken. Something like that deserves scrutiny and I'm not going to sugarcoat it because, the gravity of the problem needs to be recognized.

Sounds reasonable, but I assume the calling out or the "What the f**k were you thinking" is then accompanied by some actually relevant specification as to what the problem is? Otherwise, I wouldn't expect people to be able to fix it, at least. I don't have a problem with harsh language if it's justified and accompanied by actual on-topic constructive criticism, and kept to a reasonable amount. Anything beyond that, and it starts being counterproductive - which anyone who has ever had an asshole boss can attest to.

FordGT90ConceptWhich wraps right back into that video: lack of psychological/sociological resistance training, especially on campuses.
Normal response: Oh, sorry! I didn't realize I messed up that bad. I'll try to fix it.
SJW response: YOU HATE MY CODE BECAUSE I'M A THEY! (identity-based retaliation because of insecurity)

Kind of defines the type: always quick to throw the minority card especially when it is irrelevant.

Has this ever been the case? Or have people simply complained due to excessively harsh criticism or verbal abuse? Unless you can actually demonstrate this: straw man argument count: 3.

Also, unless you can explain what "psychological resistance training" means, I'm tempted to read it as "teaching people to toughen up", which ... well, doesn't work. Subjecting people to bad situations on average doesn't teach them to deal with bad situations - it either teaches them to avoid similar situations, or to suppress their emotions and reactions to such situations if they're unavoidable.

FordGT90ConceptEven if people lash out inappropriately, it is appropriate to state that they did and ask why. This is the first step to reaching an understanding.

In that, you're entirely right. I don't think anyone would dispute this, nor do I have the impression that the CoC is meant for situations where reaching an understanding hasn't been tried already.

StrayKATedit: Free Healthcare is something I'd get behind though if Americans were as healthy as Europeans.

Which isn't happening, of course.

Free healthcare (and, to a lesser extent, stricter regulations on the food and restaurant industry) is the reason why Europeans are healthier in the first place. We get treated early, get healthy, and stay healthy. Americans put off going to the doctor until the problem gets so bad they suddenly have health issues for life. It's well proven that "early intervention" healthcare saves society massive sums of money.

moproblems99I have to disagree on this. A strong US and a strong Russia are 'good' for both countries 'politically' as it drives spending (mostly defense). Neither Russia or the US want to go to war with each other. Most likely, each (US and Russia) are actively working on preventing their allies from fucking things up and starting WW3.

Increased spending on "defense" (itself an euphemism for military spending, which, god forbid, might be interpreted as being offensive and not defensive, which might make people less inclined to support it) is in no way a boon to society. Mainly, it enriches already rich people working for (or owning/running) defense contractors and munitions/equipment suppliers. The same money spent in pretty much any other field would likely create more jobs (as military equipment is ridiculously expensive) while at the same time avoiding glorification of violence and war. I'd call that a win-win. Not to mention that the argument for increased (or even sustained) military spending is always "we have to protect ourselves from all the scary people", which is in and of itself problematic, promoting a worldview defined by animosity and conflict.

moproblems99EDIT: FWIW, there is a lot of diversity in this country. Probably people from every country on Earth. Everyone can't be happy at the same as it is simply impossible to have diametrically opposed view points to both be happy. In any case, the best we can do is be respectful to each other about each other's views and opinions. The level of salt in this country is unacceptable no matter 'which side' you are on. Just because you do not agree with socialized medicine and education, open boarders, and treating people with more money than you with respect does not make one a racist, nazi, or anything else. Conversely, people being empathetic to immigrants (albeit, illegal) or anything else on the 'socialism' scale does not mean they deserve the vitriol they receive either.

If people on each aisle could take a second and calm down and approach issues like in this thread with a drop of maturity, we would be ok.

I entirely agree with this.

As for this:

moproblems99That is what separates the US from many other nations. The US was designed that the government would protect you from foreign states and provide you an equal opportunity - not necessarily an equal outcome.

The fact of the matter is, our country rewards those who take initiative, have desire, and perseverance. If you do not want to make an effort and live off the backs of others, it won't be that pleasant.

There's a basic contradiction in what you're saying here. Providing an actually equal opportunity for people would require measures to be implemented to ensure a semblance of an equal starting point, as unequal starting points preclude equal opportunities. If a group of people lives in poverty, they do, by default, not have equal opportunities to a group living in wealth, so as such, equal opportunity requires a government actively seeking to equalize opportunity. This used to be fundamental even in US policy and ideology (given the existence of Social Security and rather generous welfare programs historically), though ever since the Cold war and the ideological war against communism and anything left-of-center, this has been slowly but surely erased from the American consciousness, replaced by the paradox you just presented.

StrayKATThe left is the "us vs them" movement.

So we're (repeatedly) told. But look at his feed and tell me the sword doesn't cut both ways. I really don't want to have to out citations from his twitter feed, because it can get quite ugly.

moproblems99I have to disagree on this. A strong US and a strong Russia are 'good' for both countries 'politically' as it drives spending (mostly defense). Neither Russia or the US want to go to war with each other. Most likely, each (US and Russia) are actively working on preventing their allies from fucking things up and starting WW3.

Your point is fair and plausible as well. I just want to point out there's a reason I emphasized Putin in the equation.

Russia may not want war, but Putin is touchy and prone to upsets. And he wields a lot of power. Even he isn't stupid enough for war though, as he is an educated individual and knows what that would do to both of us. So, what to do? You have us taken apart at the seams first. Which ideally, he'd like us to do to ourselves, no blood on Russia's hands at all. Hence campaigns like this. So far it's been just verbal conflict but that's how everything starts. And even if no civil war ever broke out (I mean he has to know that would take A LOT more unrest), conflict does weaken american interests, which tend to help Russia's.

Just my take on it. I won't certify it as perfectly correct, college being incomplete and all. :laugh:

StrayKATThey even call themselves the "RESIST" movement.

No, I don't. I'm unaware of many if any who do (in my social group, I mean). And believe me, you won't find a much more liberal person in these forums.

StrayKATTrump OTOH is a master of media manipulation and branding - he STAYS in the news on purpose.

I don't disagree with this. He basically sold his name rights to escape numerous bankruptcies, afterall. I'm unsure whether that's business genius, or an utter cult of personality masquerading as such, but it's something for sure.

StrayKATIt's kind of a misnomer to call them the Left though. They're all magically multi-millionaires once they get into office. Pelosi is worth hundreds of millions. Their salaries don't come near that.. so where is the money coming from?

Corruption, honestly, lol. You get into politics that high and magically your rich? Again, this isn't an accusation at either party, because they all do it, money just comes with the territory. Power gives influence. Influence is good for business. Old principle.

Heh, and I see DRDNA has taken to downvoting everything I say that he doesn't agree with, no matter how respectfully. Even though I've liked his posts where appropriate as recently as today. Come on man, I even admitted I could be wrong? How much more respectfulness does one need? This is exactly how I feared the rep system would be abused... ah well.

R-T-BLike his "Fuck you, NVIDIA!" speech complete with dual middle fingers, over NVIDIA not open sourcing their driver stack?

No, that was a great point and I agree with him on it. NVidia does need to open up the driver code.

lexluthermiesterNo, that was a great point and I agree with him on it. NVidia does need to open up the driver code.

I didn't say I disagreed. :laugh: But he also pissed off NVIDIA pretty bad there, and look where we are today and who open sourced first... (though I was corrected earlier that his comment was about something else, but meh)

Beware burnt bridges. Linus was good at torching bridges to potential allies.

In short, method is what I disagree with, not goal. Linus is often right but his methods to express that is often outright counterproductive, and even meritocracy should recognize that he is a problem on that alone.

R-T-BBut regardless, my point was his twitter feed is intentionally divisive and very "us vs them." There really is no denying that.

True, but that's the way our nation and the world really is. It's reality. He's only helping people see that reality. A lot don't like it and would prefer to stay in their clap-trap igloo's.

lexluthermiesterTrue, but that's the way our nation and the world really is. It's reality. He's only helping people see that reality. A lot don't like it and would prefer to stay in the clap-trap igloo's.

I meant internal to our nation. And it still fills Russia's interests to have someone with an emphasis on divisiveness in office. Regardless of his reasons, it established my point.

Honestly, I don't see what he's exposing us to that's so groundbreaking especially considering how much his feed has blatant lies in it. If anything, I think his divisive nature only makes us weaker and less prone to work together, and I'm seeing that a lot every day. Heck, the family on facebook doesn't even talk anymore because and I quote "politics."

I don't see it as healthy. The greek city states believed constant conflict strengthened them too. That was a short lived idea that ended in them being largely absorbed by other powers willing (or forced) to work together. Applicable? Maybe, maybe not. But certainly true.

ValantarProviding an actually equal opportunity for people would require measures to be implemented to ensure a semblance of an equal starting point

Equal opportunity is often misconstrued. All equal opportunity means is that every person has the chance to improve their life from where they started. If you make an effort, work hard, and make good decisions then you can move up in class rank. Equal opportunity does not mean that the government is going to step in and make sure everyone plays nice in the sandbox.

Now, that doesn't mean any laws enacted since the country was founded are right, wrong, or indifferent. Obviously, some people have it easier then others and I am pretty sure most people (privately) cannot deny that. Frankly, I don't really care what laws are in place because I'll call a spade a spade regardless if it hurts their feelings if the situation is appropriate. Beyond that, common sense rules. Honestly, if people followed common sense, we wouldn't be in this mess.

R-T-BNo, I don't. I'm unaware of many if any who do (in my social group, I mean). And believe me, you won't find a much more liberal person in these forums.
.

I'm talking about Leftist Congress and the DNC. They don't work with him. I don't really consider them leftists though (already mentioned this), but for shorthand's sake, I tend to call them that. They're all really neo-liberals. No different than most Republicans. They just manipulate different bases. Trump's base is not Republican btw.. not exactly. Many care about things Democrats used to stand for (Blue Collar stuff). He wasn't supposed to win, and people underestimated just how many would like him. We were supposed to pick between Jeb and Hillary (an obvious setup).

18 pages already this thread, I'm surprised at how TPU tolerates this because essentially it is political.

StrayKATI'm talking about Leftist Congress and the DNC. They don't work with him.

If you men not cooperating with agendas they don't agree with, that really is the nature of politics and the republicans did the exact same thing to Obama at many many crossroads.

AlwaysHope18 pages already this thread, I'm surprised at how TPU tolerates this because essentially it is political.

Me too. I'm only here out of acknowledgement that it's not going away, for whatever reason. But I don't think it should be here.

StrayKATTrump's base is not Republican btw.. not exactly.

Well, they weren't. But they've largely hijacked the republican party.

StrayKATWe were supposed to pick between Jeb and Hillary (an obvious setup).

Ironically, my dad would've loved had Jeb pushed out of the woodwork, and voted for him in a heartbeat. :laugh:

He seems oblivious to the fact a Republican presidential vote in Washington basically doesn't count, because state is always democratic in the electoral. BTW, I hate the electoral college, but different issue.

ValantarI'm not given the impression (other than by the "ZOMG A DEVELOPER PURGE IS COMING" tone of the initial news piece here, which ... well, didn't quite come off as believable) that these rules will be used unless, you know, there's a reason for them to be used. Which is how rules work, incidentally.

Backwards: the threat is that developers that previously contributed under GPL 2.0 copyright their code because Linux Foundation adopted a extremist, politically motivated Code of Conduct.

ValantarNo. Nobody has a right to be heard. That's ludicrous. "A right to be heard" means you're effectively arguing for forcing people to listen to those they don't want to. While this would indeed be sensible in quite a few situations (as a theoretical means of avoiding polarization), it would be an entirely unenforceable rule, not to mention likely unconstitutional in the US as well as quite a few other countries. And if the ideology you're promoting says that some people are worth less than others, you don't deserve to be heard by anyone. Period. Or do you believe that public discourse shouldn't be a meritocracy?

You are correct, it isn't a "right" in formal terms. It's a guidance some organizations recommend. For example, ABA: www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2/rule2_6ensuringtherighttobeheard.html

My point was that nothing bad comes from listening.

ValantarAnd actually, you're wrong in the chronology here. Right-wing activists have been on the rise, particularly in the US, for several decades. It's only in recent years that the US has had a political left at all, ideologically speaking, which is mostly due to the government persecution of radical leftists in the 1950s, -60s and 70s (and the immense effect of "anti-communist" propaganda on US culture and society). The Democratic party is still, and has traditionally been on the right or centre-right.

They ebb and flow. Far left extremists haven't been prominent since the 1960s. Case in point, KKK only has 3000-6000 members today. They are likely still the biggest on the right.

ValantarSJW is a poorly defined slur used to ridicule anyone and everyone fighting for social justice, particularly online or in tech-related fields, and encompasses people across most of the political spectrum. The only common ideology here is disliking social injustice.

You're forgetting "warrior," aka, belligerent, aka, extremist.

ValantarELF - I assume you mean the Earth Liberation Front? Had to google that. At least according to Wikipedia, they don't have an overarching ideology beyond action-based "eco-resitsance". Even if their members' ideologies hew to the left, that doesn't mean that the organization is itself left-wing. Also kind of weird to bring up a tiny fringe group like this.

Most recent attack was in 2008 arson at Street of Dreams. They're on the FBI's terror list. Yes, they're declining in prominence.

ValantarBLE - you mean BLM? I'll assume that, as I doubt you're referencing the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. As Wikipedia tells us: "The phrase "Black Lives Matter" can refer to a Twitter hashtag, a

My bad, should he been BIE: Black Identity Extremist. Basically the violent elements inside of Black Lives Matter, Black Panther Party, and similar movements.

ValantarAntifa is ... well, first off (as most of the movements listed here) a decentralized and leaderless movement without a fixed ideology, though they seem more cohesive than the others in their beliefs and tactics. While one can argue that anarchism isn't a left-wing ideology (mainly due to the left-right axis being a gross oversimplification which entirely fails to encompass that politics encompasses more than a single variable), calling them that still fits reasonably well. However, as the name itself tells us, this is not an organization that would - or could - have appeared if there weren't actual fascists for them to fight. That's kind of a given, no? Saying "the far right has surged due to the appearance of organizations such as Antifa" is rather absurd. It's like saying messy food was invented because we had too many napkins.

Extremist views are always extremist. There isn't a big fascist movement in the USA. They're taking general concepts they hate and turn them to violence. Take Charlottesville for example. It started with BLM sympathizers vandalizing Civil War monuments. A rally was organized to draw attention to the vandalization of said monuments--there were far-right members in their ranks (I don't think a specific group was named). There was a counter-protest also organized (with Anti-Fa extremists in their ranks). Police literally watched members of the far left and far right beat each other before they intervened. Right is accelerant, left is a heat source, police are supposed to fight the fire and didn't. Police policy is to keep the two elements physically separated.

The most recent terror attack by a extreme right group was committed by the Jewish Defense League in 2001. There was two committed by the Earth Liberation Front since then (most recent in 2008). Antifa/BIE aren't organized like ELF and JDL.

I spent probably an hour trying to dig around for active gangs and extremist groups in the USA. I found an old list on the FBI but it seems that the current list is held by the Department of Homeland Security which doesn't share it. Well, New Jersey apparently did:
www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa
I quote: "Antifa: Inciting Violence Toward Far-Right Extremists"

I'm appalled by how little information the federal government makes available about active domestic threats in the USA. That wraps back into the link above where it feels like there's a deliberate coverup of known activity. It might be because publicizing information would give credibility to these extremist groups which, in turn, would be used to recruit more members. Silence hampers their growth.

ValantarAn example: in most of the Western world, society is far less violent today than it was only a few decades ago. Is this random? Is this due to chance, or because of some fundamental change to human nature? Is this evolution? No. It's due to society evolving, our culture evolving, towards viewing violence in a much more negative light, and at least as importantly, towards not glorifying violence. Has this change happened by chance? No. It has come to pass due to political activism, anti-violence and anti-war campaigns, as well as a more general focus on dialogue, understanding and respect as more effective and productive means of problem-solving. One thing it can't be attributed to is the growth of the US prison system and mass incarceration, as the development is shared across other countries as well. But the low-level public shift in the view of violence as "a fact of life" to "unacceptable in the vast majority of situations" is both indisputable fact as well as a result of political activism. What "humans being humans" means is very, very, very much subject to change.

Actually there's a pretty strong argument that the decline in violence from the 1980s to today can be attributed to de-leading everything. Violence is still most common in areas where de-leading hasn't happened in earnest. Example, Detroit (one of the most violent cities) won't get all of their lead pipes replaced for decades.

ValantarYou argue vehemently against this, without any evidence to support this claim, and against mountains of evidence showing us that, for example, making workplace harassment illegal or grounds for dismissal alone in no way whatsoever removes the problem or causes people's behaviour to change.

aka "humans being human." Laws/rules/codes don't stop anyone from doing anything. They simply disincentive behavior society frowns upon by assigning punishments for doing them.

ValantarGood luck getting a restraining order over workplace harassment …

Actually you can as long as there is evidence to warrant a restraining order.

ValantarHas this ever been the case? Or have people simply complained due to excessively harsh criticism or verbal abuse? Unless you can actually demonstrate this: straw man argument count: 3.

Edit: I tried to find what started the adoption of the Code of Conduct and I came up empty handed. See the post below for the trail I followed.

ValantarAlso, unless you can explain what "psychological resistance training" means, I'm tempted to read it as "teaching people to toughen up", which ... well, doesn't work. Subjecting people to bad situations on average doesn't teach them to deal with bad situations - it either teaches them to avoid similar situations, or to suppress their emotions and reactions to such situations if they're unavoidable.

Watch the video. Children increasingly don't know how to behave in unsheltered situations like social conflict. They don't know how to empathize with an opposing view nor protect their identity from outside influence.

You're last sentence is exactly what is wrong. Children are supposed to learn how to overcome obstacles as a function of maturing. Children that are never confronted by obstacles reach college and suddenly they're exposed to concepts they never fathomed before. Because they're physically mature at that point, opposing view points feel like an assault to them because they lack the tools how to deal with it. Bending society as a whole in order to continue to shelter them worsens their developmental problem by fortifying it.

R-T-BIf you men not cooperating with agendas they don't agree with, that really is the nature of politics and the republicans did the exact same thing to Obama at many many crossroads.

They say they stand for some of the same policies he does.

Do you know that Trump want to reinstate Glass-Steagall? This is FDR/New Deal/Leftist policy. Something Bernie and Elizabeth Warren say they want - the most Left wing of the Left wing, if there ever were some. But they would rather "Resist!" before getting something done. It's irrational.

Do you know he wants to repair and build infrastructure across the country? Another mostly leftist concern.

Do you know he wants to repair inner cities? Who do they represent if they can't even meet him at the White House and hash out policy together? One Black congressman accepted an invitation early in his adminstration and got crap for it. The Congressional Black Caucus shamed him and now he refuses to even talk. And when he announces low unemployment, it's met with silence. Just watch below. It's less than 30 seconds. How is this "bad news"? They act like they're at a funeral.


And who does "Maxine Waters" really represent, when she's living in a mansion not even in her own district, and has a net worth of tens of millions that's way beyond the low six figure salary of a congress member? Yet she's apparently some "hero" of the Left, winning awards about how "woke" she is. Get real, man!

I went down the rabbit hole and finally found where the thread starts:
lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2018-September/thread.html

Sep 4: a blog post about Kernel Community Management:
www.labbott.name/blog/2018/09/04/kernel-community-management/

Announcement that the Kernel Summit was moving from Canada to Scotland (Sep 6) so Linus could attend (Linus in a separate thread expressly said that he scheduled his vacation so he couldn't attend because of the increasing talk of a coup against him):
lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2018-September/005308.html

Theodore Y. Ts'oLast Friday (just before Labor Day) I learned that Linus had gotten
confused about when and where the Maintainer's Summit was going to be
held this year. And most unfortunately, he has already scheduled a
family vacation overlapping with the week of the Maintainer's Summit.

Over the weekend, I've been conferring with folks from the Linux
Foundation, Linus, and the Maintainer's / Kernel Summit program
committee. We explored a lot of options, but ultimately there were
only two choices that were workable:

1) Have the Maintainer's Summit in Vancouver, without Linus.

2) Move the Maintainer's Summit to Edinburgh, with Linus.

Curiously enough, Linus suggested option #1. And while holding the
Maintainer's Summit without Linus might be an interesting experiment,
ultimately, the Program Committee had a strong consensus that moving
it Summit to Edinburgh was the better option.

This means that the Maintainer's Summit will take place in Edinburgh,
on Monday afternoon, October 22nd. As a reminder, the Maintainer's
Summit is an invite-only workshop, with ~30 people attending. The
focus of the Maintainer's Summit is process and development issues,
*not* technical issues.

The Kernel Summit track will still be held in Vancouver alongside
Plumber's. Technical discussions will take place there; we simply
won't have the time, or necessarily, the right people, to have
technical discussions at the Maintainer's Summit.

This means that people who get an invite to the Maintainer's Summit
may have an extra trip this year (some may have been planning to
attend OSS EU anyway). For those for which this will be an extra
trip, I apologize in advance. Maintainer's Summit invitees will still
receive a free (non-transferrable) registration to the Linux Plumber's
Conference.

This also means that the process by which we issue invites to the
Maintainer's Summit is going to have been significantly accelerated.
So if you have any ideas for the Maintainer's Summit Topics, please
chime in soon!

The only reply (Sep 7) to that was this (remember the name):

Dave AirlieWay to go team :-)

I was unsure on making to Vancouver, getting to Edinburgh in a shorter
timeframe is even more unlikely at this stage, surprisingly I prefer
being married to hanging out with Linus.

3) Have it next year. It's all ticking along nicely, and we probably
won't make major changes anyways.

I assume this means the Monday at LPC is empty now, unless we can
propose a use for it, or a mini-summit no Linus

Here's a parallel thread (Sep 6) about the coup against Linus:
lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2018-September/005313.html

James BottomleySince our fearless leader apparently can't even remember the dates of
the only conference he goes to, perhaps now might be a good time to
talk about how we'd run an orderly succession process (purely
theoretically, of course ...)

I think a vote amongst the Maintainer Summit attendees might be the way
to elect a new leader, but others probably have different ideas.

Sep 10, we loop back to the top of this thread where an Intel representative talks about community management:
lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2018-September/005460.html

Daniel VetterI've read Laura's recent blog post on community management in the
linux kernel and want to pick it up:

www.labbott.name/blog/2018/09/04/kernel-community-management/

I think for pratical reasons (the linux kernel is huge) focusing on
subsystems is more useful, at least in the short term. Much easier to
experiment with new things in smaller groups. That's why I added
"subsystem governance". If there's enough interest on specific topics
we could schedule some BOF sessions, otherwise just hallway track with
interested parties.

Specific topics I'm interested in:
- New experiments in group maintainership, and sharing lessons learned
in general.
- Assuming it gets accepted I think my LPC talk on "migrating to
gitlab" will raise some questions, and probably overflow into hallway
track or a BOF session.
- I've held a somewhat controversially received talk earlier this
year. I'm happy to do a Q&A on that, if there's interest.

But I'm open to anything else really on the larger topic of community mangement.

Now there's a 6 day gap between the Linux Foundation summit threads and Torvalds' decision to change the Code of Conflict (Sep 16):
lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/16/167

Then on Sep 18, the Code of Conduct is brought up in the Summit thread:
lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2018-September/005737.html

Dave AirlieAllow me to open this large can of worms I find sitting in front of
me, I'm not sure where it came from and I certainly didn't own it last
week.

I'm unlikely to be able to produce a trip to Edinburgh (even Vancouver
might be touch and go, travel budgets and family commitments don't
always line up).

I think there might be place for a report from the people who did sign
off the CoC about the thoughts/process involved in updating it (and/or
urgency) to the rest of the Maintainer group.

Now I understand that having a public talk about such a thing will
likely descend into farce, there may be scope for something of a
Chatham House Rule style meeting, or just a non-recorded, non-public
session like we've done for sensitive subjects are previous kernel
summits.

It might just be a readout from a similar meeting at Edinburgh summit
(maybe someone else can propose that), or maybe some sort of Q&A
session. Maybe Linus could record a piece to camera for the
maintainers that can't make Edinburgh, but would still like to
understand where everything currently sits. Said piece would of course
be burned afterwards.

After the past 2-3 days I get the feeling there are maintainers unsure
about how this affects them and I think assuaging those fears might be
a good thing.

(Daniel and I have worked under the freedesktop CoC for graphics
projects for over a year now, so this actually doesn't affect me in
any way I haven't already considered over a year ago, when I
signed'off introducing a CoC to the drm subsystem).

I'm also equally happy nailing the lid back on the can of worms and
never discussing it again.

The individual that was talking coup before is not a fan of the CoC as adopted but doesn't want to argue it:
lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2018-September/005748.html

James BottomleyThe can of worms is that you can endlessly debate CoCs. I don't think
this one is the best we could have chosen because it separates
behaviour into "contributing to positive environment" and
"unacceptable" but we have a lot of borderline problem behaviour that
isn't mentioned at all: things like being excessively nit picking in
reviews; being unable or unwilling to reach a compromise in a code
related dispute. However, I think I'd rather have a root canal than a
debate on how to amend the new CoC, so I think it's good enough, lets
just go with it.

Torvalds has not responded to that chain. General concensus is that it will be discussed at the Maintainer Summit where Torvalds will be present.

Another thread on the topic was started Sep 24:
lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2018-September/005872.html

Shuah KhanI have been trying to follow various threads on this topic and none of them address
the review of this patch that went in. There is no mistake in the title of this topic.
I do consider this topic to be more general than limited to Maintainer Summit. Hence,
the choice of a wider Technical designation.

So I am kicking off a thread to do the review with my comments. I am in general
agreement with the spirit of this change to the existing "Code of Conflict".

Now specific concerns and comments:

I am concerned about the added responsibilities as a maintainer. I have to not only
worry about the quality of code and technical aspects, but also be responsible for
behavior of individuals I might not have any control or sway over. That said, I am
hopeful that this will help all of us in the community, maintainers and contributors
alike to think a bit more about how their response will be received and would they like
it if they are at the receiving end of that kind of message, before hitting that send
button. When we see a response that is offensive and/or hurtful, there is usually silence
on such threads. So maybe that will change with this CoC and at least some of us will say,
let's use a firm and polite message as opposed to offensive/hurtful message.

I also have a concern that what is hurtful can be somewhat subjective. What a maintainer
considers isn't hurtful, could be perceived as hurtful by the individual at the receiving
end.

What is offensive is a bit more clear. It will be learning curve for us as a community and
I do think we will get there. I believe our kernel community at large is respectful and helpful.

This decision to change the existing "Code of Conflict" signed off by a large number of developers,
has been changed and committed with a few people signing off on it.

It would be good to know the circumstances that necessitated the decision to include this patch
without the proper review process. if that isn't possible, it is important to follow the review
process now for v2. Also, discussing this in the Maintainer summit and/or kernel summit will not
make the community feel like it is a community approved decision. At least, kernel community should
be given a chance to discuss this change just like any other change.

The last two paragraphs there are of the utmost importance. Code of Conflict was adopted democratically. Code of Conduct was ramthroated.

I would love to find the meat on lkml.org but that would involve combing through thousands of posts to find the relevant wants.

Edit: Forgot browers had handy dandy "Find" functions. Looked through all of the days on lkml.org Sep 6-16 and there is nothing of note other than an absence of saying anything on Sep 15 and Sep 16's only message is the one linked above. Torvalds must have had an epiphany of some kind on the 15th but I can't find any information about it.



Edit: The commit that changed the Code of Conflict was literally the same name as this thread but checking the dates, it is a reply to, not basis of.

I'm disgruntled that I can't figure out the chain of thought that lead to adopting the Code of Conflict--especially without a review process before hand.

StrayKATThey say they stand for some of the same policies he does.

Do you know that Trump want to reinstate Glass-Steagall? This is FDR/New Deal/Leftist policy. Something Bernie and Elizabeth Warren say they want - the most Left wing of the Left wing, if there ever were some. But they would rather "Resist!" before getting something done. It's irrational.

Do you know he wants to repair and build infrastructure across the country? Another mostly leftist concern.

Do you know he wants to repair inner cities? Who do they represent if they can't even meet him at the White House and hash out policy together? One Black congressman accepted an invitation early in his adminstration and got crap for it. The Congressional Black Caucus shamed him and now he refuses to even talk. And when he announces low unemployment, it's met with silence. Just watch below. It's less than 30 seconds. How is this "bad news"? They act like they're at a funeral.

And who does "Maxine Waters" really represent, when she's living in a mansion not even in her own district, and has a net worth of tens of millions that's way beyond the low six figure salary of a congress member? Yet she's apparently some "hero" of the Left, winning awards about how "woke" she is. Get real, man!

What Trump tweets he wants and what he's actually willing to do are often two two different things. There's basically a whole subreddit dedicated to this, ironically.

If he hasn't put it forward as bills in congress, what he "wants" is a lot of hot air, frankly.

He won't deal unless sanctuary cities are dropped is my bet. Which means it's all the same game it's ever been man. One side is not being more stubborn than the others, it's bloody par for the course.

R-T-BWhat Trump tweets he wants and what he's actually willing to do are often two two different things. There's basically a whole subreddit dedicated to this, ironically.

If he hasn't put it forward as bills in congress, what he "wants" is a lot of hot air, frankly.

His first act was trying to fix Obamacare (not repealing it), and it got smashed down (both by Republicans and Dems - notoriously by John McCain in a deciding vote). His gameplan was to do that before anything. This was more left-of-center policy.

Now if the R's get more votes come November, they'll more than likely just repeal the whole thing entirely. So..... good job everybody. You had a chance at salvaging it. And if Dems win, well.. you'll get something that was intentionally destructive. So... good job for that too. :rockout: