NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>:
> I think you are blurring two groups here.
> Ted describes "anti-CoC dissidents" as people who are advancing an
> argument about rescinding their license.  This is a smaller groups than
> the "ant-CoC camp" who don't really like the CoC.  I suspect is it is a
> much smaller group when restricting to actual copyright holders.

You may be right that these are semi-distinct groups.  I don't think
the distinction makes a lot of difference to my argument, though.
Either way, (a) there's been a process failure by the leadership, and
(b) the threat of a massive legal disruption is real.

> I am against the CoC as it stands, but rescinding any license is such an
> enormous over-reaction, I find the concept laughable.

I'm...not sure I do.  I was going to agree with you that it's a
massive overreaction, but then a simple question occurred to me: what
else could *I* do if I thought I had a significant stake (I don't; my
kernel contributions are minor and old) and felt my interests were
damaged?

All this could have been avoided so easily. A felt need for a new Code
should not have been followed by the immediate imposition of one,
but by a public RFC process and consensus-building - a process in which
even those who lost arguments about the construction of the code could
know they had been heard.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.