| In the opener the author seems to generally agree that toning down ad hominem conduct is a good thing: > He's stated that he'd tone down his language (no more calls to "retroactively abort" people and such. This is all good, and I support it. One of my greatest fears is having my patch/contrition to a FOSS project be publicly dissected and ridiculed. But his bullet point objections either contradict the above (transphobia should be acceptable), or are basically contentless (objecting to a part of the CoC that the author says doesn't apply to kernel dev). Abbreviated summary of the bullet points on why the CoC is bad: 1. The CoC's author objected to transphobia within the Opal compiler project 2. The new CoC means Linus will need to tone down his language (which we seemed to be ok with in the opener). 3. The new CoC doesn't allow discrimination. Discrimination has never been a problem in kernel dev (if you really believe that, then the CoC shouldn't change anything) 4. The new CoC requires all maintainers to be of the same technical ability? (not sure where this idea came from, it doesn't require this) |
The mentioned transphobia was never in the Opal project, it was a comment made outside the project, by a member, which would be outside the scope of a such CoC.
For point 4, I think the problem for the author, was that a maintainer won't have the possibility to say a patch is bad to avoid discriminating on 'technical ability'