Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
Can you clarify what you mean? Performance benchmarks like that are, after all, often of limited value when it comes to why one might choose one OS over another. A lot of other things factor into the decision. Security, stability, consistency, ease of configuration and administration, etc. On 07/13/18 17:44, Erich Dollansky wrote: Hi, here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the priority list: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-freebsd112-8linux&num=1 Focusing on software would have made FreeBSD do better. Erich ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the priority list: > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-freebsd112-8linux&num=1 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@. 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: https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html "This Code of Conduct is based on the example policy from the Geek Feminism wiki." https://web.archive.org/web/2017070100*/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170824113511/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html 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. http://exitbrexit.uk ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
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 wrote: > Erich Dollansky wrote: > > Hi, > > here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the priority list: > > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-freebsd112-8linux&num=1 > > 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@. 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: > https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > "This Code of Conduct is based on the example policy from the Geek > Feminism wiki." > > > https://web.archive.org/web/2017070100*/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > > https://web.archive.org/web/20170824113511/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > > 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. > http://exitbrexit.uk > > ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
Hi, On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 20:21:30 +0200 "Julian H. Stacey" wrote: > Erich Dollansky wrote: > > Hi, > > here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the priority > > list: > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-freebsd112-8linux&num=1 > > > > 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@. 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: > https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > "This Code of Conduct is based on the example policy from the Geek > Feminism wiki." > > https://web.archive.org/web/2017070100*/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > https://web.archive.org/web/20170824113511/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > 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. Erich ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Erich Dollansky < freebsd.ed.li...@sumeritec.com> wrote: > > 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. > Such overly-simply CoCs have proven unworkable in the past. They were OK in the 90's, but we live in a different internet world today. These are good guidelines and great advice, but make it hard to take action when necessary. I wish it were not so. Warner ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
Hi, do you think that this will bring back programmers? Erich On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 12:43:10 -0600 Warner Losh 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 > wrote: > > > Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > Hi, > > > here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the > > > priority list: > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-freebsd112-8linux&num=1 > > > > 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@. 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: > > https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > > "This Code of Conduct is based on the example policy from the Geek > > Feminism wiki." > > > > > > https://web.archive.org/web/2017070100*/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > > > > https://web.archive.org/web/20170824113511/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > > > > 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. > > http://exitbrexit.uk > > > > ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
Which ones left, exactly? Warner On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Erich Dollansky < freebsd.ed.li...@sumeritec.com> wrote: > Hi, > > do you think that this will bring back programmers? > > Erich > > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 12:43:10 -0600 > Warner Losh 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 > > wrote: > > > > > Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the > > > > priority list: > > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows- > freebsd112-8linux&num=1 > > > > > > 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@. 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: > > > https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > > > "This Code of Conduct is based on the example policy from the Geek > > > Feminism wiki." > > > > > > > > > https://web.archive.org/web/2017070100*/www.freebsd. > org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > > > > > > https://web.archive.org/web/20170824113511/www.freebsd. > org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > > > > > > 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. > > > http://exitbrexit.uk > > > > > > > > ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
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 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 wrote: Erich Dollansky wrote: Hi, here are the consequences of putting a CoC up high on the priority list: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-freebsd112-8linux&num=1 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@. 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: https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html "This Code of Conduct is based on the example policy from the Geek Feminism wiki." https://web.archive.org/web/2017070100*/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170824113511/www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html 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. http://exitbrexit.uk ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:31 PM Warner Losh wrote: > Such overly-simply CoCs have proven unworkable in the past. They were OK in > the 90's, but we live in a different internet world today. These are good > guidelines and great advice, but make it hard to take action when > necessary. I wish it were not so. > we live in a different internet world today [citation needed] ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 6:20 PM Andras Farkas wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:31 PM Warner Losh wrote: > > Such overly-simply CoCs have proven unworkable in the past. They were OK > in > > the 90's, but we live in a different internet world today. These are good > > guidelines and great advice, but make it hard to take action when > > necessary. I wish it were not so. > > we live in a different internet world today > [Citation needed] > Direct personal experience on a conduct board, 10 years over the last 20 serving on FreeBSD core team. Most of that time as core's specialist in interpersonal disputes. That qualifies me to have an informed, expert opinion. So what are your credentials? Warner > ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 6:20 PM Andras Farkas > wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:31 PM Warner Losh wrote: > > > Such overly-simply CoCs have proven unworkable in the past. They were > OK > > in > > > the 90's, but we live in a different internet world today. These are > good > > > guidelines and great advice, but make it hard to take action when > > > necessary. I wish it were not so. > > > we live in a different internet world today > > > [Citation needed] > > > > Direct personal experience on a conduct board, 10 years over the last 20 > serving on FreeBSD core team. Most of that time as core's specialist in > interpersonal disputes. That qualifies me to have an informed, expert > opinion. > > So what are your credentials? > > I'm an expert because I say I am. What kind of conduct is that? -- Adam ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Adam wrote: On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Warner Losh wrote: On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 6:20 PM Andras Farkas wrote: On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:31 PM Warner Losh wrote: Such overly-simply CoCs have proven unworkable in the past. They were OK in the 90's, but we live in a different internet world today. These are good guidelines and great advice, but make it hard to take action when necessary. I wish it were not so. we live in a different internet world today [Citation needed] Direct personal experience on a conduct board, 10 years over the last 20 serving on FreeBSD core team. Most of that time as core's specialist in interpersonal disputes. That qualifies me to have an informed, expert opinion. So what are your credentials? I'm an expert because I say I am. What kind of conduct is that? -- Adam ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Warner Losh wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Adam wrote: I had hoped that we were done with this nonsense. Let it go already. Ted Hatfield ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: CoC does not help in benchmarks
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Adam wrote: On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Warner Losh wrote: On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 6:20 PM Andras Farkas wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:31 PM Warner Losh wrote: > > Such overly-simply CoCs have proven unworkable in the past. They were OK > in > > the 90's, but we live in a different internet world today. These are good > > guidelines and great advice, but make it hard to take action when > > necessary. I wish it were not so. > > we live in a different internet world today > [Citation needed] > Direct personal experience on a conduct board, 10 years over the last 20 serving on FreeBSD core team. Most of that time as core's specialist in interpersonal disputes. That qualifies me to have an informed, expert opinion. So what are your credentials? I'm an expert because I say I am.? What kind of conduct is that? Many past and present core members found that the existing document was insufficient in dealing with the conflict they were being asked to resolve. This resulted in some relatively high profile incidents that harmed the project. Having direct experience with the problem at hand, and having been voted into a position to deal with this, does in fact entitle Warner to speak with some authority on the subject. Furthermore, we polled committers and found that there was near universal support for respectful communication and for removing people who were unable to conduct themselves well. Core needs a document that provides guidelines so that this process is not capricious or surprising. Jeff -- Adam ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
