3 ms·

why write tests? why improve ux or ui? why help with documentation? > I mean if you can't contribute code why simply mess around with things like the Code of

why write tests? why improve ux or ui? why help with documentation? > I mean if you can't contribute code why simply mess around with things like the Code of Conduct. there are many more parts to a community, even a community of developers, than just contributing code.

lolikoisuru 8y ago
>why write tests? why improve ux or ui? why help with documentation? Because these actually improve the project.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  Many (decent) developers believe a CoC improves the project, in much the same way that any documentation on the development process or release lifecycle does so.
- jerrysievert 8y ago
  so do developers who would contribute if either there wasn't abuse, or if that abuse led to consequences. a code of conduct tends to improve projects when having one can help attract additional people to the project, or keep people there.
- danso 8y ago
  But documentation is often not code.
gedy 8y ago
> there are many more parts to a community, even a community of developers, than just contributing code. True, but OSS and business software development is frequently short-handed in people who can actually make the software, not the planners, organizers, etc. The political debate gets polarizing because many of the "makers" think it's a lack of skill, and the other side comes across as blaming the maker's attitudes/community/etc.
- jerrysievert 8y ago
  that's why we need to have very clear, concise conversations about contributions and what goes along with those contributions. being able to have those conversations without being polarized on either end ultimately helps move the conversation forward.
- danso 8y ago
  > but OSS and business software development is frequently short-handed in people who can actually make the software But you're begging the question here. I'm not the parent commenter, but it is not self-evident that the programmers/developers are the main class of "people who can actually make the software", not even in a literal sense, since software is not just its lines of code, anymore than hardware development is factory assembly. For example, in "business software development", there are product managers and other business-facing people who have input on and make decisions, for better or worse, about software development. How is a programmer's contributions to making the software more significant than those of their product/business colleagues', if the latter have failed to cultivate paying customers?

lolikoisuru 8y ago

>why write tests? why improve ux or ui? why help with documentation? Because these actually improve the project.

joshuamorton 8y ago
Many (decent) developers believe a CoC improves the project, in much the same way that any documentation on the development process or release lifecycle does so.
jerrysievert 8y ago
so do developers who would contribute if either there wasn't abuse, or if that abuse led to consequences. a code of conduct tends to improve projects when having one can help attract additional people to the project, or keep people there.
danso 8y ago
But documentation is often not code.

gedy 8y ago

> there are many more parts to a community, even a community of developers, than just contributing code. True, but OSS and business software development is frequently short-handed in people who can actually make the software, not the planners, organizers, etc. The political debate gets polarizing because many of the "makers" think it's a lack of skill, and the other side comes across as blaming the maker's attitudes/community/etc.

jerrysievert 8y ago
that's why we need to have very clear, concise conversations about contributions and what goes along with those contributions. being able to have those conversations without being polarized on either end ultimately helps move the conversation forward.
danso 8y ago
> but OSS and business software development is frequently short-handed in people who can actually make the software But you're begging the question here. I'm not the parent commenter, but it is not self-evident that the programmers/developers are the main class of "people who can actually make the software", not even in a literal sense, since software is not just its lines of code, anymore than hardware development is factory assembly. For example, in "business software development", there are product managers and other business-facing people who have input on and make decisions, for better or worse, about software development. How is a programmer's contributions to making the software more significant than those of their product/business colleagues', if the latter have failed to cultivate paying customers?