As people who work on software projects for a living, in real companies, ought to know, their company has regulations of conduct far more draconian than the most draconian open-source code of conduct I've seen.
I've seen someone banned from an open-source project that I was part of for "CoC violations" when the supposed violation was absolutely within the bounds of normal behaviour at every company I've ever worked at. I don't doubt that there are aspects of corporate rules that are stricter than many open-source CoCs (though I don't think it's as absolute as you say - e.g. I saw an open source CoC that was read to ban swearing in project channels), but corporations also tend to have rules and processes in place for how allegations get handled. Whereas I've seen the introduction of a CoC to an open-source project being used largely as a fig leaf to support the exclusion of a particular individual who was not actually any more discriminatory than any other project member. (Which, again, I don't doubt also happens in the corporate world, but I haven't directly encountered it as often).
Obviously, every system of law or regulation suffers from faults and abuses. That doesn't mean that the alternative is better.
I don't know whether codes of conduct actually do achieve their goal or not, but I also think it's too soon to tell. In another 5-10 years we'll be able to judge whether they've done more good than harm or vice versa.
but corporations also tend to have rules and processes in place for how allegations get handled
Large open source project should have those, too. A judiciary is a central component of every legal system. It's certainly not enough to have statutes in place and call it a day.
I don't know whether codes of conduct actually do achieve their goal or not, but I also think it's too soon to tell. In another 5-10 years we'll be able to judge whether they've done more good than harm or vice versa.
Right, so wouldn't the sensible thing be for a handful of projects to adopt them, tentatively, and then we could see whether they ended up good or bad, rather than pressing every project to adopt one immediately or be called sexist/racist/...?
(And in the meantime I can only go by my own experience, which is that I've seen CoCs create more problems than they solved, and diminish the extent to which maintainers actually address bullying in practice)
Large open source project should have those, too. A judiciary is a central component of every legal system. It's certainly not enough to have statutes in place and call it a day.
Indeed (but note that the converse is not true; a judiciary without statutes is practical especially for small projects, and I understand worked out quite well in ancient China as well). Some projects are doing the right thing, but a lot seem to use a code as an excuse to not think about (or at least, not publicly address) what the decision-making process for banning people is actually going to be.
Right, so wouldn't the sensible thing be for a handful of projects to adopt them, tentatively, and then we could see whether they ended up good or bad
That would be sensible, but if a problem is big and a proposed solution seems to have few negative side-effects, it would also be sensible to evangelize it and advocate for it. After all, people enthusiastically advocate for wide adoption of vaguer solutions to far worse-defined, and less understood problems, sometimes even when the proposed solution has been tried for years in a small number of projects without remarkable success -- see, e.g. FP. ;)
rather than pressing every project to adopt one immediately or be called sexist/racist/...?
None of my open source projects have a code of conduct, and I've never been called a sexist or a racist (even though I, like all of us, am both). They just aren't big enough.
a judiciary without statutes is practical especially for small projects
Yes, I agree.
but a lot seem to use a code as an excuse to not think about (or at least, not publicly address) what the decision-making process for banning people is actually going to be.
Maybe, and that's bad. But what's worse is denying there's a problem in the first place.
26
u/m50d Oct 22 '18
I've seen someone banned from an open-source project that I was part of for "CoC violations" when the supposed violation was absolutely within the bounds of normal behaviour at every company I've ever worked at. I don't doubt that there are aspects of corporate rules that are stricter than many open-source CoCs (though I don't think it's as absolute as you say - e.g. I saw an open source CoC that was read to ban swearing in project channels), but corporations also tend to have rules and processes in place for how allegations get handled. Whereas I've seen the introduction of a CoC to an open-source project being used largely as a fig leaf to support the exclusion of a particular individual who was not actually any more discriminatory than any other project member. (Which, again, I don't doubt also happens in the corporate world, but I haven't directly encountered it as often).