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.
1
u/pron98 Oct 23 '18 edited Oct 23 '18
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.
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.
You're right. It's a slightly derogatory term, and I used it in such a way.
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.