There is some awful stuff in that thread, like this gem [1]:
After microsoft puchased Github, they encouraged "Codes of Conduct".
So now 40k "opensource projects" hace CoC's.
Obviously men won't be contributing to said projects, other than
the people allready in them.
Take a look, for example, at the "contributor covenant", which github endorses [1]. It lists as its first example of unacceptable behavior:
> The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind
This is a perfect example of rules that are simply too broad. Say I write a comment `//normalize file path because fuck windows`. I said fuck; does this count as "sexualized language"? Do I need to be banned over this?
Also, a more "fun fact" example (from the same document):
> Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
Did anybody consider that this is excluding psychopaths from the community based on a psychological condition? They are, by definition, unable to feel empathy. So much for inclusivity, I guess.
Why do you need to swear in the commit history? And if you do, why not write something more clever. Also, saying, “fuck” and referencing sex are not the same thing, ask any harassment attorney. The law isn’t some mystery, these Code of Conduct rules weren’t written in a vacuum. Why is everyone such a baby about maintaining a basic sense of decency on a public, sometimes cross-cultural, project? Seriously, harden the f up and sacrifice something fairly trivial for the good of the group.
And people "know" not to steal. Yet we need to have laws so we agree on rules and boundaries. You can think of it like a list of rules agreed on early, so the project leaders don't have to go through the arguments about what's accepted after someone crosses one person's boundaries, but not another's.
The core principle of laws is that they are common and enforced equally onto every citizen. Laws and enforcement are transparent and has check and balances.
The most common objection to CoC is that they are not enforced equally. Different classes of people get treated differently and enjoy different rights. The enforcement have no transparency and no check and balances.
To take two recent well known examples, we had during the last year the stackoverlfow controversy over the new CoC, and wikipedia ban of an admin over CoC. In both cases there were major issue of transparency and selective enforcement. In the wikipedia case there was also problem with lack of check and balances. In the stackoverflow case there was also voices raised about other common rules now being unenforced in order to comply with the CoC creating a situation where different people get enforced by different rules.
Laws can be good. Rules and Boundaries can be a positive thing. They are not all good, not all positive. It depend. Without careful process and system for fairness it is very likely to turn bad as the above examples illustrates.
You're raising good points regarding consistent enforcement and transparency, but I think they're orthogonal to the existence of CoC. You can have transparent handling of issues without preexisting rules. You can have rules with bad/no implementation.
Sure, some CoC rules may be not great. But having some rules written down at least indicates leaders thought about the problem.
> Because reasonable people already know how /letting people use/modify/redistribute modifications is good for software/ and don't need a /license/ to tell them. I've never seen a case where a /copyleft license/ improved software.
* The use of sexualized language
* insulting or derogatory comments
* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
Obviously on the face of it these are extremely reasonable. The problem is that they are also extremely vague. Is it ok to say "fuck" in a comment? Or is that "sexualized language"? Can I say "this code is stupid" or is that too insulting? What if it isn't directed at anyone?
The fear is that there is a certain kind of person who loves picking people up over these sort of inconsequential rule ("social justice warriors"). For some reason they like to get into positions of power and then enforce petty rules.
I don't think that happens 99% of the time, but it does seem like CoCs encourage it and I've never seen evidence that extensive CoCs help so why bother? Just put a comment in your readme like you suggested - "CoC: Thou shalt not be an asshole."
Even if we agree with everything in your comment, the question is "Is the <1% of the time this happens a good enough reason the reject every project with a CoC?". Personally, I would answer no to this.
CoC's are inherently political, they say something about the people you have to deal with when contributing to the project. If you like that kind of people you'd see a CoC as a positive, but if you don't like them then you'd avoid CoC's. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
I'm confused now. Are you saying A) that OP doesn't have any know-how to contribute to the project, and you deduce that from their political views, or B) that, no matter how much OP may contribute on a technical level, it's meaningless if their political views don't align with yours?
In either case, I suggest you stop using the internet. It mostly runs on (GNU/)Linux servers, which were strongly influenced by RMS who you probably disagree with, so none of that can be any good for you.
Rather C) to keep people who think “treating those different from themselves with common courtesy and decency” is a political view, and that technical prowess exempts them from such from getting involved.
If you can’t contribute without being a dick, why would anyone want your contribution?
> If you can’t contribute without being a dick, why would anyone want your contribution?
I, for one, want it because it's a contribution to open source, and I am pissed at people who feel otherwise and try framing their dumb opinion as more than just that.
Why would you want their contribution? I don't know, it's not my problem, and you don't speak for me. You don't speak for many people. Maybe you speak for a majority of the community, maybe not even that.
At the end of the day, rejecting good code because someone else doesn't like the contributor, that's just dumb and it holds open source back.
> that technical prowess exempts them from such from getting involved
What does one have to do with the other? Just because someone behaves like an asshole doesn't mean they need to be excluded from everything. Assholes can open bank accounts too, does that mean banks somehow agree with them?
My hypothesis, and I have no way of proving this, is that a substantial part (at least 20%) of the people attacking someone elses "toxic behavior" in the programming community are just pissed that they're not as good. Sorry if I'm bursting anyones bubble, but some people just suck at programming. Some people just can't deal with how someone they really don't like is better than them at the skill they identify with.
Because code has no political or other opinion - it either works or it's trash. When one or two people in the world ban good code, everyone loses. Rather, those one or two people are problematic and could use psychological guidance to fit in better.
If by intended you mean driving away reasonable people that want to make software not get involved in politically motivated drama and moral panics then yes.
I like that we have a police and I've never committed a crime, but having a police around still makes me nervous since they have a lot of power. CoC's have the same effect, any reasonable person would understand this. They make contributing to a project feel more like a job and less like casual fun, and I don't really see why I would spend my free time doing a job for free.
Obviously it's hyperbole - but a lot of people are definitely put off by coc, myself included. It's a wretched, insidious text sneaked in by very bad actors into mainstream open source repositories.
The great thing about CoC is that they tend to be self-reinforcing, keeping out exactly the people who are bound to conduct themselves in ways that are inconsistent with the principles behind them.
I participated and co-ran a gaming community for about 10 years, and whenever drama occurred we added whatever behavior triggered it to the rule list. It grew, and grew and grew into a very large CoC. By a few year into it people caused drama over the rules, people "lawyer" over them, they got enforced selectively, people accused each other of favor-ism, splits occurred and the community almost killed itself over the rules.
When the game moved into a sequel we changed the rules. Now it says "Treat others with respect and courtesy", which don't really qualify as a CoC since its basically common sense. People see it as so obvious that it not even a rule, more of a guideline.
This new rule has since then been pretty stable. It keeps out exactly those who can't behave but welcomes everyone else. There has not been a single instance of arguments about selective enforcement or favor-ism in terms to how the rules get enforced.
My own experience from that seems very similar when people complain about CoC. Long CoC lists tend to create fear, uncertainty and doubt within the community. It creates tiers of people where different class of people get the rules enforced differently. This in turn create a deep seated distrust.
Before codes of conduct, it was reasonably common for misogynistic men to get away with poor behaviour towards women in their communities “because they write good code”. I’ve suffered this directly, so have others I’m close to.
> Before codes of conduct, it was reasonably common for misogynistic men to get away with poor behaviour towards women in their communities “because they write good code”.
And now they're just as misogynistic, but we don't get to enjoy their code. They're also hidden from view so it's less likely that someone is going to tell them to cut the crap and maybe re-evaluate their world-view. They've essentially been shoved into an echo chamber.
In the end, arguing about code of conduct means arguing about the core ideas of free speech, one of them being: Do we want to segregate wrongdoers, or attempt to deal with them?
> And now they're just as misogynistic, but we don't get to enjoy their code.
I'd rather get the code of all the women who were driven out of tech by their bigotry and hate than whatever they'd write, even if it was legendary golden code spewed forth from the fount of all wisdom.
I honestly am not amazingly fussed about what we do with them overall as long as I don’t personally have to deal with them when trying to publish some code!
Linus' use of explicit language was exactly something that should be used as an example. He rarely attacked people, but instead attacked the actions that they did or ideas that they had.
I'm not sure what point you're making here? In hindsight, he views his words as inappropriate. I'm not sure I understand what the temporal distance between the words and the apology has to do with how appropriate they were.
He's the Gordon Ramsay of the software world. Sometimes it just takes strong language to get a point across: "your code is low quality and you're wasting my time by having me review it". And to be honest, I'd gladly take being insulted over having to waste my time. Strong language doesn't hurt anyone, but you won't ever get that wasted time back. I consider it verbal self-defense.
I find that just being a normal, friendly person is enough to satisfy most, if not all CoCs.
I've never had to read one, and I've never been in a situation where I was in violation of one.
Could you possibly elaborate? To me CoCs seem like they'd be at best a good thing and at worst harmless. What do you think is wretched and insidious about them?
While some codes of conduct boil down to "just be nice", sometimes they end up encoding very specific beliefs of the people writing them.
For example, the code of conduct on dev.to [1] states that:
-------------
We pledge to prioritize marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:
‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as 'leave me alone,' 'go away,' or 'I’m not discussing this with you.'
Someone’s refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
Criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
-------------
Note the "we will not act on complaints regarding [...] reverse racism". As someone who 100% disagrees with the idea that "reverse racism" is a thing (although I find the word dumb; it's just plain racism, nothing "reverse" about it) I have to ask myself: Does this mean the rules differ based on skin colour? Is something acceptable when said by a black user to a white user, but racism if it's the other way around?
It's things like these that, I believe, end up turning a "code of conduct" into a de facto political manifesto designed to keep out not only unwanted behavior, but also unwanted world-views. It's those codes of conduct that create direct harm.
> It's a wretched, insidious text sneaked in by very bad actors into mainstream open source repositories.
Replace text with code and think about how the supposed 'meritocracy' of open source deals with the problem? Isn't 'nobody is stopping you from forking it', 'submit a pull request', 'the community/bdfl has final say', not apply here as well? Or do the benefits of open collaboration stop at code?
Here let me be even more clear for the downvoting-without-commenting cowards :
> It's a wretched, insidious *code* sneaked in by very bad
> actors into mainstream open source repositories.
How would have OSS projects historically dealt with code pushed by someone, which was deemed detrimental/inferior to the overall intent and purpose of the software ?
Isn't it the presumption that whatever gets absorbed / pulled in, reflects the consensus of the community involved and that the future of the project is determined by the sort of natural evolution ? ...the bazaar ? So, if the bazaar now puts value on CoCs ...you may either contribute or dissent and start up your own competing replacement. Isn't that the way it was supposed to work ?
These people said they won't contribute to a project with a CoC, which is exactly what you say they should do. So what is the point of your post? They are already following your advice!
Umm no. Can you read threads in whatever client you are reading this on?
The post I replied to said that they were put off by a CoC and alleged that this is being pushed by bad actors. My point was to say that the CoC exists in the repos because of the same reasons open source exists. Not because of insidious acts of bad actors.
