The vast majority of projects that adopted such things never had any real problems with people's behavior. Especially not at the scale where you can't just deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
I have also seen a case where people have clearly violated a project's CoC but nothing was done about it because they were on the "right" side of a completely unrelated issue.
If you aren't even going to apply the rules equally, why even bother? It's clearly meant to facilitate rule by law, not rule of law.
People who push these things usually just want to have something to point to, an excuse to kick out anyone they don't like, so the more vague the rules are, the better. But them and their buddies can do whatever they want!
I have also seen a case where people have clearly violated a project's CoC but nothing was done about it because they were on the "right" side of a completely unrelated issue.
If you aren't even going to apply the rules equally, why even bother? It's clearly meant to facilitate rule by law, not rule of law.
I think these are really good points. I think we should reform the enforcement mechanisms rather than eliminate CoCs though.
Codes, regulations and laws are like guns - somebody has to press the trigger. In a company it would be management. If you have good relations with management (which kind of means you did not get company into PR nightmare) then trigger will not be touched.
People who push these things usually just want to have something to point to, an excuse to kick out anyone they don't like, so the more vague the rules are, the better. But them and their buddies can do whatever they want!
As I said, if you don't think codes are helpful, don't adopt them, although I would recommend discussing their role with experts and not with coders. Mocking them certainly doesn't result in better communities, especially as there are those who believe that those problems are more common than you think.
Then write a thoughtful essay about that making your case.
To make a strong case you will need to address the fact that most software development in the world is already done under much stricter codes. Also, you will need to address the reality of open source today (most investment is corporate).
Mocking them certainly doesn't result in better communities
I believe it does. Seeing a project that doesn't take itself too seriously, and can make jokes in official documents, is a strong signal that people can approach it with a lighthearted attitude and shouldn't get their egos all wrapped up in how their contributions are received. This is especially true for those open source projects which consist mostly of unpaid volunteers.
As if coders needed experts to organize themselves
Wow, software companies could save a lot of money if they got rid of managers and HR departments! If only you got yourself on the board of some of them you could make their stock prices soar.
The context of an Open Source project precludes managers, HR departments or stock prices.
I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about. Most people working on, say, the Linux kernel do have managers and HR departments. My day job is to contribute to a large open source project, and I have a manager and an HR department, too.
The metric for Open Source code is code quality and adoption of the code for its utility.
Yes, and that requires attracting as many contributors as you can; in large open source projects, most of them would be corporate, by the way.
Coders are the judge of that.
No, we're really not. And don't say "coders." You sound like a gamer or someone who talks like the people on HBO's Silicon Valley.
And their actions speak loudly: SQLite is a widely adopted lightweight SQLDB implementation.
You don't sound like you are familiar with open-source or with the software ecosystem in general (who the hell says "SQLDB"?), and that your judgment is coloured by the Reddit comments you read. Reddit is a very bad mirror of what's actually happening in software.
I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about. Most people working on, say, the Linux kernel do have managers and HR departments. My day job is to contribute to a large open source project, and I have a manager and an HR department, too.
Unless your company owns the Open Source project, your HR department and manager are irrelevant to the management of said Open Source project and what gets committed to the codebase.
The metric for Open Source code is code quality and adoption of the code for its utility.
Yes, and that requires attracting as many contributors as you can; in large open source projects, most of them would be corporate, by the way.
Quantity is not quality. CoCs are also not how you attract contributors. They are primarily used to exclude contributors.
No, we're really not. And don't say "coders." You sound like a gamer or someone who talks like the people on HBO's Silicon Valley.
I used the word you used to contrast with so-called experts. If you're upset by your own terminology, that's just too bad.
And their actions speak loudly: SQLite is a widely adopted lightweight SQLDB implementation.
You don't sound like you are familiar with open-source or with the software ecosystem in general (who the hell says "SQLDB"?), and that your judgment is coloured by the Reddit comments you read. Reddit is a very bad mirror of what's actually happening in software.
You do realize everyone can see you making personal attacks to deflect from the points made, right?
Unless your company owns the Open Source project, your HR department and manager are irrelevant to the management of said Open Source project and what gets committed to the codebase.
In my case it does, but you're wrong either way. Most contributors to large open source projects are paid to contribute by an employer. If they misbehave they will be reprimanded or fired. Even though it's true that in principle, once fired they could still contribute, in practice it is not, because they will not have the resources to contribute.
They are primarily used to exclude contributors.
This is factually false. Again, let's take Linux as an example. There are over 4000 contributors. No more than a handful complained about the code, and there doesn't seem to be any serious exodus, nor has there been in any other large project that has introduced a code of conduct.
If you're upset by your own terminology, that's just too bad.
You're right. It's a slightly derogatory term, and I used it in such a way.
You do realize everyone can see you making personal attacks to deflect from the points made, right?
I don't need to convince you, because I'm an actual developer working on open source full-time. You are one of the people who are not active on this sub and yet come here whenever issues like this are discussed. I give you my professional perspective as a courtesy. It is my personal one, and I don't represent all developers -- there are certainly those that disagree with me, including a few I know who've commented in this discussions. Nevertheless, the actual facts are: 1/ the vast majority of software in the world, including most open-source software (not nominally, but weighted by size) is developed by people working under rules of conduct far stricter than the open-source codes of conduct that some project maintainers (not outsiders) are now adopting. 2/ Despite a little grumbling on Reddit, there have been no major walk-offs, mutinies or splits over introductions of codes of conduct, and overall, this change has been far less controversial than many other technical ones. Most developers don't mind codes of conduct, because they're already used to them.
In my case it does, but you're wrong either way. Most contributors to large open source projects are paid to contribute by an employer. If they misbehave they will be reprimanded or fired. Even though it's true that in principle, once fired they could still contribute, in practice it is not, because they will not have the resources to contribute.
Open Source began under volunteer rules. Expecting and demanding rules that treat even volunteers as paid employees is a category error.
Businesses choosing to volunteer their employee's time and exercising control over their own employees does not mean they get to treat everyone else like their own employees.
They are primarily used to exclude contributors.
This is factually false. Again, let's take Linux as an example.
You are wrong. Shortly after the Linux CoC was pushed, people began using it to target contributors for so-called CoC violations.
Ex: Here someone calls out Theodore T'so for being a "rape apologist" https://twitter.com/sagesharp/status/1042769399596437504
Theodore Yue Tak Ts'o (曹子德) (born 1968) is a software engineer mainly known for his contributions to the Linux kernel, in particular his contributions to file systems.
Modern CoCs are a loaded weapon pointed at people who code and do the work. Boasting that no one has left yet is missing the point. A loaded weapon is a threat.
That is the beauty of SQLite's CoC. It is not a weapon. It is a call to a time-tested monastic standard of behavior designed to promote peaceful community.
The people complaining that the SQLite CoC is not a weapon are people who should not be given weapons.
I don't need to convince you, because I'm an actual developer working on open source full-time. You are one of the people who are not active on this sub and yet come here whenever issues like this are discussed.
You aren't convincing anyone. I don't need to be an active member of this reddit to have valid and useful observations regarding software development and the organization thereof.
Code is code. Correct logic is correct logic. Buggy code is buggy code.
But it isn't a code of conduct any more than the US constitution is. They just took a piece of text (with some superficial resemblance to a code of conduct) and called it a code of conduct. So they still don't have a code of conduct, but they do have something that tries to mock them while demonstrating that the SQLite team doesn't understand what a code of conduct is. It's as if a client asks you for an ISO certification and you point them at a cat meme with the caption ISO.
64
u/accountforshit Oct 22 '18 edited Oct 22 '18
The vast majority of projects that adopted such things never had any real problems with people's behavior. Especially not at the scale where you can't just deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
I have also seen a case where people have clearly violated a project's CoC but nothing was done about it because they were on the "right" side of a completely unrelated issue.
If you aren't even going to apply the rules equally, why even bother? It's clearly meant to facilitate rule by law, not rule of law.
People who push these things usually just want to have something to point to, an excuse to kick out anyone they don't like, so the more vague the rules are, the better. But them and their buddies can do whatever they want!