cortx VS contributor_covenant

I keep hoping some day the drives will have their own networking built in. Kioxia, a Toshiba spin off, announced a network-attached NVMe-oF drive last September[1], and I seem to recall one of the major drive players had similar intents a bit back... ah yes, the Seagate Kinetic drives with dual 1Gbit[2] & an object storage OS built in to the drive. These days Seagate seems to be pushing a software platform CORTX[3], which I hope some day perhaps has hardware products too (but right now seems to be for classic linux-based network appliances)

Ideally we start using 5 or 10Gbit ethernet for these cases. We could continue to treat these drives like they are direct attached, even though they are network attached, and either have one computer running RAID, or have Ceph and a bunch of computers running it's distributed system to tap the drives.

Ideally though, we need new clustered file-systems, where any computer can read the drives. That is, I'd guess, a long way off. Legacy devices (home media players) would need to go through some kind of legacy gateway.

[1] https://business.kioxia.com/en-us/news/2020/ssd-20200922-2.h...

[2] https://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/MayurShelty_Seagate...

[3] https://github.com/Seagate/cortx

Those aren't the only ways I could see things happen, but that represents a few points on the spectrum. Having been participating in the English Wikipedia community since the early days, I know that collaborative writing on a worldwide scale is hard, and leads to misunderstandings and hurt feelings. Hence the reason why things like the Contributor Covenant came out, and why Linus Torvalds took such a long time accepting something. Note, things labeled "Code of Conduct" and "Contributor Covenant" are one small slice of governance. Dealing with things like the ideal public transit system create a massive extra layer of complexity. Governance, in general, is difficult.

I think everyone needs to get on board with consequences. Perhaps it'd be appropriate for this group to adopt an existing code of conduct (software example), and a person or elected board that's responsible for enforcing consequences for breaking that code. That's a lot simpler to say, then do, but I don't think anyone will generally change unless there are consequences to their actions.

The Foundation and anybody who receives funds from it will be required to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Read my proposal to change:

If you control Open source you control the worlds servers and the internet. Like a cancer it is infecting everything https://postmeritocracy.org https://www.contributor-covenant.org

For people who understand french (or can use translation tool)

this is the only account back in 2019 of the events:

https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2019/09/17/richard-sta...

It scores much higher to me on journalism than whatever came in US press.

It seems people in US don't value defending free speech, and tend to get offended easily due to taking things only on first degree.

In that frame, they should care more about defending the first amendment of their constitution, and try to get other degree when interpreting words they have negative reaction to.

I don't know how to solve the issue, but I've started trying tackling some of this in context of code of conducts affecting many sofware communities:

https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/...

The proliferation of the "standard" Contributor Covenant CoC is the worst thing to ever happen to open source. You just have to read some of the threads from it's inception to see exactly where this was headed from the start.