Quoting: ColomboNot only you didn't read the post, you didn't read my post. I asked if you did read two posts before the one you linked. And no, you didn't.

I did read your post, but I did misunderstand you. I don't frequent mailing list archives, so I navigated with the 'previous message' 'next message' buttons, rather than the 'in reply to' button. So I went in both directions several times and I couldn't find anyone using statistics. You said: "Have you tried to read just two posts before that when someone was using statistics to prove their point?" and since you didn't mention who 'someone' was or the point they were making I could only conclude that you were talking about T'so 'previous' message where he used statistics. That's my mistake, but I'd appreciate if you could use names, links, or quotes in future. That said I still stand by most of post, but now at least now I understand why he used the '1 in 6' '1 in 4' numbers.

T'so's post is also confusingly vague in relation to what he's replying to. He never mentions Jacinta Richardson and never quotes her words in that post. He never mentions the conference or the %6. Richardson's argument is that it's extremely likely that multiple sexual assault survivors attended the conference who could be made uncomfortably by the sexual imagery used. And you're misrepresenting her %6 figure:

Quoting: JacintaRichardsonStudies show that about 6% of men are willing to self-report to rape so long as the word "rape" isn't used. Potentially 37 attendees at LCA are sexual predators who don't view themselves as such.

And T'so never directly addresses this. Instead he makes a straw man fallacy depicting rapists in a strangely specific way, initially to tear down the ideas he assumes are being presented by the statistics, but evidence of this is no where to be found. He also seems to use it as of separating violent rape from less violent rape (as sexual assault is always an act of violence), but I don't understand why it matters when victims could be traumatized regardless.

Quoting: TedTso(Which makes it no less a crime, of course, but people may have images of rape which involves a other physical injuries, by a stranger, in some dark and deserted place. The statistics simply don't bear that out.)

Quoting: TedTsoIf the statistics include cases where both college students are drunk,
and sexual penetration occurs, and since the women didn't give
consent, obviously its rape, then it's fair to ask what percentage of
the statistics are this sort of case, and what percentage of the cases
are one where the women is jumped from behind in Central Park by a
strange, and raped at knifepoint.

...

Not that I'm justifying miscommunication leading to sex; but I do
characterize that as being different than being raped at gunpoint.

(can be read here

Again what does this have to do with the conference, harassment policy, or Richardson's post? At the same time he fixates on dismissing sexual coercion via alcohol; despite the fact that it's a much more likely scenario than his back-alley stranger and is still sexual assault. And if this isn't victim blaming, I don't know what is:

Quoting: TedTsoSuppose Bob was partially inebriated, and said he wasn't sure if he wanted to have sex,
but Alice wheedled him and kept on asking until he said yes. No force was involved,
but he could be "psychologically coerced"? Would that be an indication that she raped him?
Suppose Bob drank the alcohol himself, willingly. And if he was still raped, does he
bear any responsibility for put himself into a situation where Alice could ask and ask him
until he said yes?

He's trying to make a point by switching the genders, but it falls flat. Repeatedly badgering someone for sex is a use of force. And regardless of how intoxicated a person is, it's never okay to take advantage of someone when they've already repeatedly propositioned them without success. So no, Bob wouldn't be responsible if he was raped; the person who chose to keep pursuing him, chose to take advantage of his intoxication, chose to rape him, bears the responsibility. People don't choose to get raped, no more than people choose to get murdered.

Of course, Richardson never said anything about sexual coercion or alcohol, so even in the proper context that I missed he's still off base. His point seems to be that Richardson is fear mongering because not that many adult women are getting violently raped; and if so I don't see what that specific subset has to do with anything? Especially since it's estimated that %30 of sexual assault cases aren't reported. Richardson's argument was not that women are going to get violently raped at the conference (or in a park, apparently?), but that there's likely sexual assault victims at the conference as well as perpetrators who don't understand what constitutes sexual assault; and I'd say T'so proves her point (though I want to clarify that I'm in no way accusing T'so of sexual assault, just that he doesn't understand it). He also misconstrues the 1 in 4 figure, as Richardson specifically said sexual assault and not just penetrative rape.

So yeah, I did miss the post you were referencing, but even after reading it I'm still left scratching my head as to why he thought this was an appropriate response. I also strongly reject the idea that my last post was a 'straw man', because that implies I made false arguments on T'so's behalf only to tear them down. I've been pretty thorough in showing where my assertions come from. I've been arguing in good faith based on what I read. I missed some context but it doesn't really change much about my argument: He made a poor, ill informed argument that had little to do with what was being discussed.

And if you're going to make assumptions about T'so's argument or my argument please include the specific parts of the posts that support that. I won't be satisfied with just "it feels" and "It seems".

Quoting: liamdaweYou can get a point across easily without being a rude, obnoxious and hostile.

That's true. But we are all just humans. We all do this from time to time. The most important part is knowing when you did this and maybe consider not going that route in the future.

Some times, one might not realize that one is insulting because one might feel to be "on the right side". But that happens. Everybody has different views, and that's fine.

Not going to quote this entire thread here, I find this rather to the point:

QuoteFrom there the conversation is basically people debating these changes and whether women in the community have been given an inclusive environment, and how to implement one. It loses focus when people really start going at each other, but that's the basic discussion.

These are different things. It is very rare to have a formal debate on a mailing list certainly not the the degree you appear to expect. Discussions DO get heated (how you judge this simply from words I wouldn't begin to fathom considering you also state above you don't read mailing lists often). Linux and OSS have largely existed based on upfront, honest communication with less emphasis on poltical discourse. Believe it or not people are quite fine with that.

QuoteThis is why T'so's comment seems to come out of left field; the only thread is that it is related to violence against women. However, he focuses on strangely specific kind of violence: forcible rape of women who were 18+ at the time. His argument is that the statistics regarding rape against women are exaggerated and dishonest.

Just a bit harsh if not slanderious no? Most people would say it's his opinion.

QuoteHe mentions 2 studies, the National
Violence Against Women Survey (2000) and the Sexual Experiences Survey (1987); his '1 in 6' and '1 and 4' numbers respectively.

....

I lied, there is another quote:

QuoteHe also seems to use it as of separating violent rape from less violent rape (as sexual assault is always an act of violence), but I don't understand why it matters when victims could be traumatized regardless.

Sexual Assault is not defacto rape. Sorry to break it to you. Much of your quotes above carry the same line of fallacies.

Edits: formatting

An interesting development is that "some" core developers are now considering the nuclear option, of revoke permission for using their contributed code.

This would be terrible almost regardless of who those "some" are, now it *seems* to be a powerplay in order to have the new Code of Conduct reworked so that it has less of room for being exploited to randomly evict people and keep the meritocracy in place.

Some notes;
- They can indeed revoke permission, under GPL v2 each contributer keeps copyright of their work. Moving to GPL v3 requires each contributer to sign over their copyright individually.
- It's unclear how many core developers are involved as being seen publicly speaking against the new code will have people give you fun label such as "rape apologist", people aren't exactly lining up to put their name to it.
- This is my take / interpretation of the current turmoil, read it as such :P

I personally hope they manage to balance merits & inclusiveness without fracturing the codebase - on the surface it does seem like it should be fairly easy to have a "don't be a jerk to other contributers or users" policy and leave it at that - because honestly does it really matter what kind of asshat a person is outside of the project? If it turned out that large portions of the kernel were written by people whose worldview you find abhorrent, would you stop using it(and there by Linux)?

Quoting: GuppyThey can indeed revoke permission, under GPL v2 each contributer keeps copyright of their work.

No developer can revoke the code published under GPLv2. That's what the GPL was designed for. The GPL enforces future freedom of code.

Quoting: GuppyI personally hope they manage to balance merits & inclusiveness

I'm really not sure if you need to "balance" that. In my view, they are not really connected in any way. If you're good at coding, your code will get included because it's good.

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: GuppyThey can indeed revoke permission, under GPL v2 each contributer keeps copyright of their work.

No developer can revoke the code published under GPLv2. That's what the GPL was designed for. The GPL enforces future freedom of code.

ESR disagrees with your assessment, and I'd take his word over yours tbh.
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1809.2/06864.html

Quoting: Eric S. RaymondFirst, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the
relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the
U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to
conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are
judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in
countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.'s opt-out of
the "moral rights" clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an
even stronger case.

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: GuppyI personally hope they manage to balance merits & inclusiveness

I'm really not sure if you need to "balance" that. In my view, they are not really connected in any way. If you're good at coding, your code will get included because it's good.

Given that the author is also responsible for this https://postmeritocracy.org/ and that beeing "good at coding" is a merit, do you still hold this opinion? at least I hope you can see where the concern stems from

Quoting: GuppyESR disagrees with your assessment, and I'd take his word over yours tbh.
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1809.2/06864.html

I know his stance, but I'm really not sure why he thinks that. Stallman (author of GPL) says otherwise: https://www.itwire.com/open-source/84683-linux-code-contributions-cannot-be-rescinded-stallman.html

I'm not sure how that would work? Can you only revoke the exact code you submitted? Or any line of code you submitted any kind of patch for? How would that even work? Everything can be changed by others in time. If any part of Linux you submitted is changed by multiple others after that and only 40% or your original code is there anymore. What then?

Quoting: GuppyGiven that the author is also responsible for this https://postmeritocracy.org/ and that beeing "good at coding" is a merit, do you still hold this opinion? at least I hope you can see where the concern stems from

I don't see it. There is of course something called "institutional racism/sexism". But that's just how society works. Just give it some time and it will work itself out. It's on a very good way if you ask me. By insisting on even more groups and categories for human beings, one does only achieve the opposite of the desired effect.

It should absolutely be only about the code. No one needs to know any of your social status or anything else when you submitted some code. However, in human communication such things are important. That's true. But for the code quality, it just doesn't matter.

"Make good code and be excellent to each other" is completely sufficient.

I seem to recall a few GPLv2 projects that had to have contributers sign over copyright in order to change license. but then IANAL - hopefully time won't tell who is right ;)

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: GuppyGiven that the author is also responsible for this https://postmeritocracy.org/ and that beeing "good at coding" is a merit, do you still hold this opinion? at least I hope you can see where the concern stems from

I don't see it. There is of course something called "institutional racism/sexism". But that's just how society works. Just give it some time and it will work itself out. It's on a very good way if you ask me. By insisting on even more groups and categories for human beings, one does only achieve the opposite of the desired effect.

It should absolutely be only about the code. No one needs to know any of your social status or anything else when you submitted some code. However, in human communication such things are important. That's true. But for the code quality, it just doesn't matter.

"Make good code and be excellent to each other" is completely sufficient.

At the heart of it I think we agree, how ever the fear is still there that it could very well be that who gets to submit code or set the future direction of Linux could be chosen not on Technical merit but on filling some social quota.

Quoting: GuppyI seem to recall a few GPLv2 projects that had to have contributers sign over copyright in order to change license. but then IANAL - hopefully time won't tell who is right ;)

That is indeed needed to change the license. That still doesn't mean that any code published under GPLv2 before that change of licence is somehow revoked. The GPL says that this code is free no matter what. That is the point of it.

Quoting: GuppyAt the heart of it I think we agree, how ever the fear is still there that it could very well be that who gets to submit code or set the future direction of Linux could be chosen not on Technical merit but on filling some social quota.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I also think that code shouldn't be some kind of social quota filling. Every kind of special treatment for any group is not a good thing in my book, be it small groups or big groups.

Quoting: Guppy

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: GuppyI personally hope they manage to balance merits & inclusiveness

I'm really not sure if you need to "balance" that. In my view, they are not really connected in any way. If you're good at coding, your code will get included because it's good.

Given that the author is also responsible for this https://postmeritocracy.org/ and that beeing "good at coding" is a merit, do you still hold this opinion? at least I hope you can see where the concern stems from

We just had this conversation in the comments of another topic, but I still don't see what the author of the template document has to do with anything. They have no authority over the Linux kernel and the document doesn't change that. Only the content of the document as adopted by the Linux kernel matters. And the way the people in charge of the kernel read and understand it of course. It's not a legal document, and they can interpret and enforce it as they see fit.

Quoting: Doc Angelo"Make good code and be excellent to each other" is completely sufficient.

As you can see in the commit message Dedale linked to, it apparently wasn't. That's what the old Code of Conflict said, but it had no real effect. Something more explicit was needed, and I think the current CoC is a step in the right direction. It isn't perfect, but I don't see how that could ever be the case, and why that matters so much.