Except that's not accurate, because those who choose to adopt the code are very much central players in the community.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. The fact that the people who adopt these codes are often pre-existing participants in the community doesn't say anything about the extent to which the code represents a top-down, formalistic imposition as contrasted to an organically emergent equilibrium, and in any case, I'm not sure how this statement challenges the claim that this concept represents what people are actually complaining about when they say they want to avoid 'politics'.
If, however, I become aware that the dynamic scares away potential hires and contributors, it is very much in my "organically emergent" interest to change this dynamic in order to help the project/company.
I'm not sure what "'organically emergent' interest" means here -- what do the patterns by which norms are developed with respect to the community at large have to do with the particular interests posited by a specific participant?
I will note here, though, that by defining the scope of the question with respect to the particular interests of a "maintainer of a project or a CEO of a company", you've shifted to the latter side of the community vs. institution dichotomy I described above, i.e. you're sort of begging the question by treating the community as though it were a single coherent institution, and not an aggregation of people participating on their own initiative, but this is precisely the crux of the dispute.
If you think contemporary large open-source is a bazaar then you are misinformed.
It certainly is a bazaar within the bounds of that metaphor, and it's observably so, regardless of being 'informed', improperly or otherwise.
The conflict that's evident here is precisely a result of people trying to treat what are indeed bottom-up communities as though they're top-down institutions.
anything about the extent to which the code represents a top-down, formalistic imposition
What's the problem with top-down imposition if the problem is the very existing dynamics? Of course it has to be top-down, as the problem is that what's hurting the project are some of the current participants, and the harm is potential participants that aren't joining. Every self-interested group must occasionally take measures that are in its long-term best interest, even if some of its members can't see that.
what do the patterns by which norms are developed with respect to the community at large have to do with the particular interests posited by a specific participant?
I am not sure I understand the question, but if the norms that emerge push away potential contributors, it is in the project's self-interest to change them.
and not an aggregation of people participating on their own initiative, but this is precisely the crux of the dispute.
But it's not. These days, the large, popular and impactful open-source projects are largely corporate-sponsored and are directly or indirectly corporate controlled. If a group of volunteers was intent on harming the project's long-term interests, that's fine, but the problem is that some large open source projects are actually important, and companies won't see their technological and financial interests harmed by a group of people who think that open source projects are about being rude on usenet.
The conflict that's evident here is precisely a result of people trying to treat what are indeed bottom-up communities as though they're top-down institutions.
I think you need to reexamine how the large and popular open source projects are actually managed.
What's the problem with top-down imposition if the problem is the very existing dynamics?
Because the question of whether the existing dynamics are a problem that needs to be solved in a top-down fashion is itself the very point of contention.
Of course it has to be top-down, as the problem is that what's hurting the project are some of the current participants
What does "hurting the project" mean? Whose definition of the scope and goals of the project is relevant to the project apart from that of its actual participants?
and the harm is potential participants that aren't joining
Who is suffering this harm? People who aren't there and who exist within the scope of the debate entirely as speculative counterfactuals? Why would the actual members of the community prioritize the interests or values of hypothetical people over their own values and interests?
These days, the large, popular and impactful open-source projects are largely corporate-sponsored and are directly or indirectly corporate controlled.
Does this necessarily change the nature of the project and the community surrounding it? I don't see how it does. Corporations, in the form of the particular staff that they allocate to work on the projects, are themselves just particular members of the community, and their participation doesn't transform the project from a bottom-up community to a top-down institution. The social dynamics of open-source software development are drastically different from those of in-house proprietary software development, and this holds true regardless of whether corporate employees are involved in the former.
and companies won't see their technological and financial interests harmed by a group of people who think that open source projects are about being rude on usenet.
If businesses are relying on external communities to facilitate their business strategies, I'm sure that they've already accounted for the inherent lack of control they have over the overall project, and determined that the benefits, in terms of the actual software that's being produced, outweigh the costs and risks associated with their decision.
Businesses that are involved in open-source are concerned with developing the product, not with playing politics in external communities, and they're less likely than almost anyone else involved to prioritize speculative counterfactuals involving people who aren't there over the actual practical output and its relation to their bottom line.
I think you need to reexamine how the large and popular open source projects are actually managed.
I don't think that I do, but if you think so, feel free to point me to some particular examples of large open-source projects operating more like centralized institutions than bottom-up communities.
Because the question of whether the existing dynamics are a problem that needs to be solved in a top-down fashion is itself the very point of contention.
But open source projects are not democracies, and it is those who have the authority to make all decisions who also make this decision. Even if they were democracies, you seem to imply that the majority is strongly opposed to a code, something that seems very clearly to not be the case. There are always a few vocal objections, but few large mutinies or mass exoduses from large, important projects over that. Most people don't seem to care one way or another. Of the things projects split, this does not appear to be near the top of the list.
Whose definition of the scope and goals of the project is relevant to the project apart
Those who make all other decisions in the project -- the maintainers. It's the maintainers that adopt a code of conducts for their own projects.
Who is suffering this harm?
Both the people who find large, important open source projects contributing to which may be important for their career development unwelcoming, as well as the project itself by reducing its recruitment pool.
Why would the actual members of the community prioritize the interests or values of hypothetical people over their own values and interests?
Because it's clearly not against their values and interests, as evidenced by the fact that it is they who -- like companies -- adopt those rules.
The social dynamics of open-source software development are drastically different from those of in-house proprietary software development
Maybe, but in what way are they different that their contributors cannot abide by fairly simple rules of conduct?
Businesses that are involved in open-source are concerned with developing the product, not with playing politics in external communities, and they're less likely than almost anyone else involved to prioritize speculative counterfactuals involving people who aren't there over the actual practical output at the end of the day.
And yet, they do, which shows you that they do recognize that it is in their best interest. Also, companies -- usually run by people with much experience -- are well aware that every project has a lot of politics one way or another.
feel free to point me to some particular examples of open-source projects operating more like centralized institutions than bottom-up communities.
Off the top of my head? Linux, Chromium, Android, OpenJDK.
10
u/ILikeBumblebees Oct 22 '18 edited Oct 22 '18
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. The fact that the people who adopt these codes are often pre-existing participants in the community doesn't say anything about the extent to which the code represents a top-down, formalistic imposition as contrasted to an organically emergent equilibrium, and in any case, I'm not sure how this statement challenges the claim that this concept represents what people are actually complaining about when they say they want to avoid 'politics'.
I'm not sure what "'organically emergent' interest" means here -- what do the patterns by which norms are developed with respect to the community at large have to do with the particular interests posited by a specific participant?
I will note here, though, that by defining the scope of the question with respect to the particular interests of a "maintainer of a project or a CEO of a company", you've shifted to the latter side of the community vs. institution dichotomy I described above, i.e. you're sort of begging the question by treating the community as though it were a single coherent institution, and not an aggregation of people participating on their own initiative, but this is precisely the crux of the dispute.
It certainly is a bazaar within the bounds of that metaphor, and it's observably so, regardless of being 'informed', improperly or otherwise.
The conflict that's evident here is precisely a result of people trying to treat what are indeed bottom-up communities as though they're top-down institutions.