I am also extremely relieved that, indirectly, it appears that, finally, it has been recognised that a serious "abuse" problem exists within the RISCV community.
The shockingly poor standard of behaviour towards "outsiders" - which is best described as "intellectual bullying" - ot seems has finally gotten through and resulted in a code - *any* code - being created.
Intellectual bullying is extremely insidious, being both hard to characterise *and* hard to detect, sometimes even by the person being subjected to it. This by the very nature of intellectual bullying being very specifically *actively designed* by its perpetrator(s) to avoid detection.
[Clues to aid in the detection of intellectual bullying include the perpetrator using sarcasm, condescension and patronising language, then "acting surprised and offended" on being caught / challenged. They are also extremely skilled at turning things around and "making it the victim's fault"].
The toxic Code of Conduct known as the "Contributor Covenant", with its politically-motivated list of hateful keywords and phrases poisoning every community it touches, is completely and hopelessly inadequately designed to characterise let alone deal with intellectual bullying.
I will not go into any detail on the toxicity of the hate-filled Contributor Covenant, except to say that every community I have tried to educate and advise the adopters on its adverse effects has been so violent and abusive, ironically in direct violation of the very purpose of *having* a Code of Conduct, that the hypocrisy they displayed left me in no doubt that the adopters were in no way a community that was safe to participate in.
As someone who has been subjected to all forms of bullying since the age of 11, I have, by necessity, made a study of it. Like you, Karsten I recognise the signs that this particular document is designed for the purposes of what I colloquially call "goal post moving".
Goal post moving is itself a type of bullying where the target victim is selected arbitrarily *and in advance*, and the "authority" chooses and defines (and iteratively RE-defines, repeat until "success") the "rules" by which they "eject" the target from the community.
There was a political party that gave its name to this type of behaviour: the Fascist Party from between the First and Second World Wars. I made the mistake once of describing one Social Club's behaviour in the Netherlands as "fascist" (adverb), not realising that, due to the language barrier, they mistook it as an accusation of being "Fascist" (proper noun). [Historically, Holland was subjected to the most awful human rights abuses by the Fascist Party.] I was not a member of that club for very much longer after making that particularly spectacular communications error. Their behaviour, sadly, still has not improved, and this is reflected in their membership numbers.
David: as always, I am going to be direct and honest with you, in good faith as always. The "outsiders" in the RISC-V community (the ones that are not conbected directly to Berkeley or SiFive), if they have not given up entirely, are getting quite fed up of not being consulted. Defining a Code of Conduct *without consultation* is a classic example in a long list of examples of behaviour that, in and of themselves are clearly *in no way* possible to describe as "welcoming" or "inclusive".
Take the announcements surrounding the Barcelona Conference. These announcements stated, "Come and meet the Companies and Universities who have made RISCV what it is today". Absolutely no mention of the huge efforts of the libre and open communities, without whose efforts RISCV would not exist, making the libre/open community feel both exploited and unwelcome.
I have to say that the numerous examples of people who have been shockingly abusive, some of them even taking up a "personal crusade" to hunt down posts on other forums and poison those too, leave us, sadly, it has to be said, in no doubt that the RISC-V Foundation is in no way qualified to define, police *and then become Judge and Jury* on what constitutes "acceptable" community behaviour.
It is also quite likely to be stepping well beyond the limits defined by Trademark Law, which, if correct, could result in full and irrevocable invalidation of the RISC-V Trademark.
The summary then is that whilst this initiative is desperately needed and welcome, its imposition without actual discussion or consultation is not acceptable.
To see an example of one of the most stunningly effective, respectful and simple Code of Conduct and Diversity Statements I have ever seen, look at the Debian pages:
https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
https://www.debian.org/intro/diversity
The diversity statement is particularly stunning in how deeply respectful and simple it is. They very specifically use "positive reinforcement" - repetition - to emphasise what is welcome. Thus there is *no need* to poison the community with toxic proscribed "activities". Absolutely not a single toxic "hate" or "abuse" behavioural word in sight, and yet it is blindingly obvious that abusive or non-inclusive behaviour will not be tolerated... *all without treating the community like they are already guilty*!
Summary: *The focus is on being WELCOMING*.
The Contributor Covenant is well known to be anything but welcoming. More than that, its modifications, as Karsten points out, leave the community in fear of "Power Abuse" by parties unknown.
The Contributor Covenant is about fear, punishment, control and abuse. Not to STOP such abuse, but to perpetrate and sustain it, by making abuse its core focus.
The Debian Code of Conduct is about inclusion and encouragement, and is clearly welcoming to all who wish to further the Debian Project.
Put simply: why should anyone agree to the imposition of such a hate-filled "goal-moving" document, when persistent bullying has gone unchecked for so long, driving people away from the community and leaving them in fear of speaking out, in case the perpetrators target them further with vengeful retaliation?
Lastly: I do appreciate that this feedback is entirely unsolicited. It is given in GOOD FAITH because I fully recognise the value of what you, and the Founders, have achieved, and would like to see RISC-V become the success that it deserves to become. Given however that the CoC has been imposed, unsolicited and without consultation, you will forgive me for also providing constructive criticism, unsolicited.
I trust that you will give this some careful thought, and will come back - publicly not privately - with insightful questions on how to create a truly welcoming and inclusive RISC-V Community.
I look forward to reading further public and constructive insights from other members of the RISC-V Community, that they feel that it is safe to do so, and that their opinions and concerns will be respected, listened to and addressed in a positive and discerning fashion.
Warmest and with deepest respect,
L.
p.s for anyone considering responding I recommend reading this document, first, and using its advice as a template.
https://www.crnhq.org/12-skills-summary/
Karsten I am pleased and relieved that you found a suitable location to reply, and that you did a thorough job of carefully reviewing the document.I am also extremely relieved that, indirectly, it appears that, finally, it has been recognised that a serious "abuse" problem exists within the RISCV community.
The shockingly poor standard of behaviour towards "outsiders" - which is best described as "intellectual bullying" - ot seems has finally gotten through and resulted in a code - *any* code - being created.
Intellectual bullying is extremely insidious, being both hard to characterise *and* hard to detect, sometimes even by the person being subjected to it. This by the very nature of intellectual bullying being very specifically *actively designed* by its perpetrator(s) to avoid detection.
[Clues to aid in the detection of intellectual bullying include the perpetrator using sarcasm, condescension and patronising language, then "acting surprised and offended" on being caught / challenged. They are also extremely skilled at turning things around and "making it the victim's fault"].
The case stands as an important reminder that trademark licensing principles are different for governmental organizations because of the overarching constraints of the First Amendment.
On Jul 24, 2019, at 3:45 AM, Stefan Wallentowitz <ste...@wallentowitz.de> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V SW Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sw-dev+un...@groups.riscv.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/sw-dev/2578f48b2b8e83f1cf563e5c37e4d01eda119048.camel%40wallentowitz.de.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 00:22 -0700, lkcl wrote:
> one other thing that the RISC-V Foundation will need to be
> exceptionally careful about: as a Trademark holder, abuse of the CoC
> may result in "First Amendment" violations by preventing and
> prohibiting expression of points of view (and may even have "chilling
> effects" which cause people to *fear* speaking out)
You have the freedom of speak, but everyone else has the freedom not to
listen or to transport your message.
>
https://advertisinglaw.foxrothschild.com/2017/02/first-amendment-wins-isu-barred-viewpoint-discrimination-trademark-licensing-program-student-organizations/
>
> Censorship, in other words.
>
> According to the article above, Trademark law may *not* be utilised
> to prevent or prohibit discussion that the Trademark holder simply...
> "does not like" or "finds to be objectionable". This is why the
> language within the document is particularly troubling, not just in
> the parts that state "we may do anything deemed reasonable", also in
> the sections considered to be "conspiracy".
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but I see no relation
between the article and a CoC whatsoever.
> It's also language that is extremely similar to that utilised by
> Hitler to take control of the German Government in 1939 ("we may do
> anything we deem to be reasonable" and of course the first thing that
> Hitler considered "reasonable" was to declare himself a dictator and
> to close the German Parliament).
Beside that you should get the history straight (Hitler took control in
1933 not 1939, the latter was start of WWII),
I find it extremely
offensive and disrespectful to tens of millions of victims and
survivors
to even remotely associate the problems you
have with the
RISC-V Foundation to Nazi Germany.
That argument alone pretty much
excludes you from any discussion around CoCs.
*plonk*
The case stands as an important reminder that trademark licensing principles are different for governmental organizations because of the overarching constraints of the First Amendment.- From that articleThe RISC-V Foundation is not a United States governmental organization and therefore is not subject to First Amendment restrictions.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V SW Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sw-dev+un...@groups.riscv.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/sw-dev/e0c6d927-2e84-4aeb-bcc5-fdf5c10e87d2%40groups.riscv.org.
i am providing a concrete example of this type of behaviour, so that it is clear what is meant:
notice how the bully says [...]
again: there is no need to take this tone (and if you had followed the discussions, you would know the full story).
given that in the past you have been seriously abusive, and your tone in this message is also using brusque to the point of rudeness, *and* you have not been keeping up-to-date and make others work harder to point out the errors that you are making, *and* are using intellectual-bullying language, i'm reporting you through the newly-created con...@riscv.org process. this is much a test *of* that process - to see if it is taken seriously - as it is anything else.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:46 AM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:i am providing a concrete example of this type of behaviour, so that it is clear what is meant:notice how the bully says [...](Quoting lkcl's response on the linked thread)again: there is no need to take this tone (and if you had followed the discussions, you would know the full story).
given that in the past you have been seriously abusive, and your tone in this message is also using brusque to the point of rudeness, *and* you have not been keeping up-to-date and make others work harder to point out the errors that you are making, *and* are using intellectual-bullying language, i'm reporting you through the newly-created con...@riscv.org process. this is much a test *of* that process - to see if it is taken seriously - as it is anything else.What I'm seeing is an attempt to discredit another member, both by calling them a "bully", and through tone policing:In my opinion, your use of tone policing, belittling another member by calling them a "bully", and threatening to report them is in and of itself abusive.
To me community moderators who enforce a CoC need to act as arbiters of disputes. While there are sometimes clear-cut cases where one person out right abusive, to me at least this is not one of those. In cases that are more nuanced, IMO it's the goal of a community management / moderation team to help the individuals involved see both sides of the story and ideally resolve their disputes.
Normally I do not respond publicly on conduct issues, but the sheer volume of discussion ongoing on this thread as well as other technical threads indicates a need for a response.
There are a number of issues that have been brought up that require time to research and discuss privately.
In the meantime, rather than shutting down this thread, I propose that all group discussion related to the CoC be limited to this thread and not to bleed out into technical threads.
So please limit all CoC discussions to this thread. If I do see conduct discussions going on in other threads, I will limit the participation of the people responding on those threads and possibly shut them down.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:47 AM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what's happening is basically that we're getting quite pissed off at the exclusion from *innovation*. our team's efforts are unique in that it was never envisaged by the RISC-V Foundation that anyone would:
Luke: Please remember that libre-riscv members have different
responses to the RISC-V Foundation's actions (or lack thereof), so
therefore, a better way to state that would be "... that I'm getting
quite pissed off ...". I personally am not angry, more annoyed.
Do note that I do have different standards than Luke and do use GitHub
(https://github.com/programmerjake). I personally am not going to join
the RISC-V Foundation at this time because of the conflict of interest
between libre-riscv's current funding requiring openness and the
RISC-V Foundation effectively requiring NDAs to join.
I'd be very
happy to work with the RISC-V Foundation and others in public.
what is the process by which outsiders may propose OFFICIAL extensions?
[commentary: the above sentence is taken from guidelines by both UNICEF as well as from a book titled "how to talk to kids so that kids will listen and how to listen so that kids will talk". The advice applies equally to adults although obviously needs translating by adding N decades to the participant language...]
Three weeks ago I spotted a comment by Andrew, "the very scary Krste". This was very funny and yet at the same time very revealing.
The incident being referred to was when I utilised knowledge of the Systemic Laws of Organisations to identify a problem in interactions with Krste.
One of the Systemic Laws states:
"Both seniority in expertise and in length of service must be respected".
This should be really obvious as to why this Systemic Law exists. Many cultures have it deeply ingrained as "respect for the elderly" however this is not the full story.
What I identified was that, unfortunately, Krste, for whatever reason (most likely due to lack of time) would enter a discussion, make a statement (in the form of a declaration), and either leave or write in such a way that no possible opening exists for further engagement.
The problems arise as follows:
1. Under the above Systemic Law, only people with similar expertise or similar length of service are in a position to be able to express doubt or question Krste's "double whammy" authority.
2. Only people such as Andrew, and David, and others with close ties to the Founders fall into BOTH categories.
3. Very few people on these lists have the TECHNICAL expertise to be able to respond and POTENTIALLY express doubt or question any mistakes, but run afoul of the "length of service" part of the Systemic Law.
4. Everyone else is ******d, both ways.
Now, as someone who is entirely independent, with no University Affiliation, no "Employer" to threaten me with dismissal, and no "Reputation" to lose in Free Software projects, I was literally the *only* person who could raise the red flag on this one.
I did the best that I could, and explained that people felt intimidated into being unable to respond. I was rewarded with a response from Krste that described by constructive insights, given in good faith, as "an ad hominem attack".
Efforts to explain that this was simply not the case did not receive a response.
This is what Andrew colloquially and amusingly referred to as "the scary Krste".
The problem is one of perspective. The Founders, through close association in their fantastic journey to develop RISC-V, have a close bond where they feel comfortable and safe to discuss ideas, good and bad, and work together.
This has been extended from its beginnings in UCB out to SiFive and from there to the (sadly, closed participatory) Foundation Charter.
Additional recognised experts have declared their interest and capabilities, signed the Membership Agreement which indicates a formal recognition of the above Systemic Law, i.e defers to the authority of the RISCV Foundation.
These lists operate completely outside of that formal structure. With very few people in the world even being *aware* of the Systemic Laws of Organisations, compliance with them is usually by accident (as an aside, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the despised Contributor Covenant IN NO WAY complies with the Systemic Laws).
So there are three main things here:
1. There is a failure by the Founders to appreciate the enormous power that they wield. That their length of service *and* expertise combine to make it extremely difficult to interact with them if they close their minds on any topic.
2. That *amongst* those same Founders (you included, Andrew, bless you), there is puzzlement and a lack of understanding *of* the enormous amount of power that they wield and
3. This results in *another* Systemic Law Violation: "denial of reality".
These two combined Systemic Law Violations are particularly unfortunate. The further up the power tree that "denial" occurs, the more harm it does to the Organisation.
This is outlined very explicitly in the book "Invisible Dynamics". An entire Organisation can be locked up solid if its CEO denies reality.
Why?
Because, very obviously, as the CEO, absolutely nobody but the shareholders has any power or influence over them, and only then by way of "extreme conflict" which starts to run afoul of *more* Systemic Laws.
The last thing to mention here is to emphasise that because I do not appear to have any reputation to speak of, or standing in any community, and because of the forthright honesty that I have always engaged in, publicly and transparently, for over 20 years, it is very easy to be tempted to dismiss, devalue or mischaracterise the role that I play.
I should not have to be here. I should not have to be spending my time (and spending sponsors and charitably donated funds) raising these issues.
This should *already* have been a safe and welcoming environment where people can share ideas and work on innovation and advancement of RISC-V, regardless of whether they work for a billion dollar company, have a PhD, or are a privacy advocate respecting software freedom.
RISC-V is *not safe* to take to a wider world, displacing ARM.and Intel's dominance, until these issues are properly and OPENLY acknowledged and discussed [without imposition from "authority"]
That means engaging in feedback, asking *questions* that allows for openings, *always* assuming good faith, accepting constructive criticism at face value, and *saying sorry and thank you* when it is given.
These are really basic and fundamental community interaction rules, which nobody should feel are ever in doubt, or be described under such blatantly disrespectful and outright dismissive phrases such as "tone policing".
I should not have to repeat these words again, response-team. It would go a long way towards repairing the enormous damage going back well over four years (long before I was around) if you could acknowledge the above and indicate that it has been finally heard and that action is being taken.
Best,
L.
I gave serious consideration to using MIPS or PowerPC instead. Ironically that would mean changing the domain name and a whole boatload of links.
I said to David Patterson that the goal has been set for the Libre RISCV SoC. I will not repeat publicly his response, it was too shocking.
Things will appear to get worse before they get better, Dennis.
Thanks for sharing.
L.