CoC does not help in benchmarks

Erich Dollansky freebsd.ed.lists at
Sun Jul 15 23:28:19 UTC 2018


On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 20:21:30 +0200
"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:

distracted is a nice euphemism for 'good people ran away'.

>   The COC hi-jack replacement promoted by FreeBSD Foundation, was
>   contentious, incompetently phrased in places, imposed without

Here I disagree. It was competently phrased when targeting a
functioning community with the aim to damage it.

>   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."
Does anybody need more:

    Keep it civil.
    Be tolerant.
    Remember that you are in public and that your actions determine the
    public perception of the project. Do not make it personal. Do not
    take it personally.


More information about the freebsd-advocacy mailing list