CoC does not help in benchmarks

Stephen Cook sclists at
Wed Jul 18 05:10:40 UTC 2018

My question was a direct response to another comment, which said the new
CoC did not chase away any significant contributors.

Do we want to attract people with no useful skills? I think that,
regardless of whether you are "Vulnerable" or "Oppressor", your work
should have to be good enough to be included. Nobody will want to use an
operating system written by whomever can cry the loudest. I just hope
that patches are still reviewed and they don't start committing code
based on identity politics.

I am not against people feeling safe or welcome. There are specific
complaints about this CoC that the supporters ignore. It is sad that a
group of smart people fell victim to these activists, and then shoved
the resulting trash CoC down our throats without public discourse. It is
possible to do this correctly.

-- Stephen

On 2018-07-17 10:53, CL Moonriver wrote:
>> Was the project going to lose any significant contributors if we didn't
>> protect them from *hugs*?
> Probably not, but I don't think that's the right question to ask. I
> think the right question to ask is does the current CoC attract new
> people who want to contribute, but are perhaps intimidated because they
> don't think they have the skills, are not some kind of rockstar kernel
> programmer, etc? And that is one thing I think the current CoC does
> pretty well. It's one of the things that attracted me to the FreeBSD
> community to begin with. The CoC is "welcoming" of new members who want
> to contribute but don't think they have the necessary skills to do so.
> I'm a good example. I don't have the skills to contribute anything to
> the kernel, drivers, etc. But I can help with documentation, and maybe
> adopt an abandoned port or two that is written in Python or some other
> language where needing to worry about platform differences is usually
> not an issue, and when it is an issue, it's usually fairly simple to
> find and fix the problem.
> Contrast that with some other communities (I won't mention specific
> names, but you can probably think of a few) that are basically a mess of
> elitism, people being made to feel unwelcome because they aren't super
> programmers, super admins, and so on. And some that even have relatively
> serious problems with sexism if you look at their discussion lists. (A
> couple of well known projects come to mind, but again, I won't name
> anything specifically because I don't want to turn this into that kind
> of discussion.)
> The point is, I think it is important that the CoC make new contributors
> feel welcome and that if they want to contribute, they probably can, no
> matter what their background or skill level. And they don't have to
> worry they are going to harassed or insulted for "not being good
> enough". Again, that's one of the things that attracted me to FreeBSD to
> begin with.
>> PostgreSQL recently adopted a reasonable, non-politicized CoC. If
>> someone is harassed (and it has to be real harassment not just some
>> vague "reinforcing systemic oppression" which I think might include
>> simply existing as a White Cis Male, depending on the complainant) there
>> is a clear procedure to deal with it, as well as safeguards against
>> spurious accusations. It would also be a violation to "dox" someone,
>> which the FreeBSD CoC does not protect against and in a way encourages:
>> "Deliberate "outing" of any private aspect of a person's identity
>> without their consent *except as necessary to protect vulnerable people
>> from intentional abuse*" (emphasis mine).
>> The FreeBSD CoC in its current form (or anything close to it) is pushing
>> a political agenda in itself, has little to do with its alleged goals,
>> and does not help the community. It is possible to protect people from
>> harassment, or at least remove the offenders, without defining some sets
>> of people as Vulnerable and another as The Oppressors.
>> -- Stephen
>> On 2018-07-15 19:43, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Erich Dollansky wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> do you think that this will bring back programmers?
>>> No one who was making significant contributions to architectual
>>> performance problems has left or stopped their contributions.  We lost a
>>> few ports committers, at least one of which was extremely idle.  There
>>> is disagreement on exactly how to proceed among the developer community
>>> but it is nowhere near the level you're suggesting.
>>> I believe people of many different stripes are attempting to capitalize
>>> on this to push their own political agenda.  I hope that other readers
>>> of this list recognzie that this is not reflective of the project as a
>>> whole and the CoC and benchmark results have nothing to do with
>>> eachother.
>>> The core team is taking up the issue of what amendments may be necessary
>>> based on developer feedback.  Please give us time to make progress and
>>> stop stirring up false controversy.
>>> Jeff
>>>> Erich
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 12:43:10 -0600
>>>> Warner Losh <imp at> wrote:
>>>>> 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 wothwhile.
>>>>> Warner
>>>>> 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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> freebsd-advocacy at mailing list
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>>> "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribe at"
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-advocacy at mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>> "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribe at"

More information about the freebsd-advocacy mailing list