CoC does not help in benchmarks

CL Moonriver clmoonriver at
Wed Jul 18 22:45:37 UTC 2018

Of course, the work has to be good enough to be included. But I also 
think virtually everyone has some useful skills they can contribute.

I don't see anything particularly off-putting in the CoC that should 
make talented developers leave, though. And I don't really see a 
connection between the CoC and not doing so well on a particular 
benchmark that, as others have pointed out, has little to no real world 
value anyway.

On 07/18/18 00:10, Stephen Cook wrote:
> 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