CoC does not help in benchmarks

Warner Losh imp at
Sun Jul 15 18:43:23 UTC 2018

The plan is to do another revision, this time in public. We've already done
the first round of data collection and have data to inform the revisions.
Now that core election is done, progress can be made.

Replying point by point to this misleading and slanted assessment is not


On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 12:22 PM Julian H. Stacey <jhs at> wrote:

> Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > Hi,
> > here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the priority list:
> >
> FreeBSD performance is really bad on some comparisons there.
> > Focusing on software would have made FreeBSD do better.
> Yes, The new COC imposition distracted from coding:
>   The COC hi-jack replacement promoted by FreeBSD Foundation, was
>   contentious, incompetently phrased in places, imposed without
>   prior debate, enforced by a few commiters, wasted peoples time &
>   caused annoyance.  Aside from the content, the process also
>   deserves reprimand. There were complaints to core at .  Core secretary
>   wrote me that review was in progress.  Nothing long since.
> The hijacked COC needs at least core@ review.
> Discussion before would have been better.
> I'd at least suggest append:
>   "No one may edit this COC, without prior consent of core@"
> As the promoting commiters abused due process, stifled debate, &
> their hijacked COC foists their own "Code of Conduct Committee" &
> taht will deny most appeals, a sceptical eye seems appropriate ;-)
> Refs:
> "This Code of Conduct is based on the example policy from the Geek
> Feminism wiki."
> Cheers,
> Julian
> --
> Julian Stacey, Computer Consultant, Systems Engineer, BSD Linux Unix,
> Munich
>  Brexit Referendum stole 3.7 million votes inc. 700,000 from British in EU.
>  UK Goverment lies it's democratic in Article 50 paragraph 3 of letter to
> EU.

More information about the freebsd-advocacy mailing list