5 ms·

Do you know who's going to gravitate toward projects with a Code of Merit instead of a Code of Conduct? People who are ostracized by projects with a Code of Co

by jawns 8y ago

Do you know who's going to gravitate toward projects with a Code of Merit instead of a Code of Conduct? People who are ostracized by projects with a Code of Conduct. Or, to put it another way, if you're a jerk and you argue with other contributors about an on-topic issue in a jerky way, then under a Code of Merit, you still come out on top as long as you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!), even if it leaves other contributors feeling put down. Granted, there is some overlap. For example, both the Code of Merit and most codes of conduct disallow disparaging remarks based on protected characteristics. But the Code of Merit disallows them because they're considered irrelevant to the project, whereas codes of conduct disallow them because they're affronts to dignity. I do take issue with many codes of conduct in the tech space, because I think they tend to be written in a bubble world where everyone assumes that everyone else thinks just like them, but a Code of Merit sounds like it's even more problematic.

brobdingnagians 8y ago
Based on what _you_ define as affronts to dignity. There are a lot of very intelligent people who see problems with society and critique society, but society doesn't like that much. Intelligent people do very good work and tend to get along with other people who think deeply. If an affront to dignity is simply a well thought out critique or parody of society, I can see Code of Merit projects doing very well indeed...
notacoward 8y ago
> who's going to gravitate toward projects with a Code of Merit Nobody. That doesn't even seem to be the intent; it's not so much something to be adopted on its own merit as it is a passive-aggressive critique of real codes of conduct. Note how it repeatedly addresses what one may not do to address any kind of conflict or bad behavior, but it doesn't spell out any mechanisms to enforce even its own rules. Contrary to another commenter who says this can and should exist alongside a code of conduct, I interpret this as (intentionally) undermining any such companion. It's just a not-so-clever way to imply that people who believe in codes of conduct don't believe in meritocracy (paragraph 4), lack technical prowess (para 6), seek disruption and deviation (paras 7 and 14) - all without actually having the guts to come out and say so. Thus it falls afoul of its own injunction to "discuss or debate the idea" (paragraph 9) because it doesn't even mention - let alone address - the arguments in favor of what it seeks to destroy.
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
a 'code of conduct' is a social weapon
crispyambulance 8y ago
I have never understood why people feel strongly about "Code of Conduct" statements. It seems insane to me that someone would profoundly object to guidelines that effectively say "don't be an asshole". But it happens! There are people rage-quitting stackoverflow/stackexchange communities expressly because of they can't abide with the new initiatives/CoC that say one has to be nice and get along with others. I guess this is yet another manifestation of that impulse. Maybe someday someone will write up a psychological analysis of this kind of behavior. I sure don't understand it.
- pbowyer 8y ago
  > Maybe someday someone will write up a psychological analysis of this kind of behavior. I would like to read that; both what's driving the thinking behind adoption, and the responses. You could apply it to any organisation that requires you to sign up to its rules before joining. > It seems insane to me that someone would profoundly object to guidelines that effectively say "don't be an asshole". Does this help? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200
  - crispyambulance 8y ago
    > Does this help? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200 Very well put. But I still can't fathom a _real_ situation where CoC would cause me to reconsider participation, let-alone quit and look for alternatives which serve up something like that "Code of Merit". In the high-profile spaces which have implemented CoC's, they've been a reaction to long-established patterns of bad behavior (I am thinking specifically about stackoverflow). It remains to be seen whether the CoC in stackoverflow helps, but I don't think it hurts. In general, I think online communities are much more prone by being overrun with assholes than face-to-face communities. In the case of stackoverflow, they've game-ified the interactions to such an extent that it has become a very weird place to ask a question. In their quest for quantifiable objectivity, they've attracted personality types that think it's OK to be hostile in order to satisfy what they think "the mission" of stackoverflow is. It has gotten bad enough that people are reacting and their new CoC is their attempt at making amends.
pbowyer 8y ago
> I do take issue with many codes of conduct in the tech space, because I think they tend to be written in a bubble world where everyone assumes that everyone else thinks just like them, but a Code of Merit sounds like it's even more problematic. I take issue with them because a Codes of Conduct doesn't make a space safe. And also because if we need a written list of what behaviour is tolerated, we have a much greater problem than a code of conduct will solve. I've seen people write about the former; I haven't about the latter. I find a CoC offputting because it equates me with the lowest of the low. It says I can't be trusted to behave like a decent human being and need to be told what's right and what's wrong, like being back at school. I also see it as darker than "assumes that everyone else thinks just like them". Some - not all - are about controlling the world into the form the CoC proponent(s) want it to be. The CoC goes beyond its words and into society. Neither do I support the Meritocracy thing, as I've had it used on me too many times by people who are super-smart and see that as a reason to be jerks.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > It says I can't be trusted to behave like a decent human being and need to be told what's right and what's wrong. Do you leave your door unlocked and your keys in your car? If not, aren't you assuming that there are some people out there who can't be trusted? If I come to your house and find it locked, should I be insulted that you've not "trusted me to behave like a decent human being"?
  - pbowyer 8y ago
    > Do you leave your door unlocked and your keys in your car? If not, aren't you assuming that there are some people out there who can't be trusted? If I come to your house and find it locked, should I be insulted that you've not "trusted me to behave like a decent human being"? Are you meaning to equate those who don't follow CoC's to criminals? My response would be that those are societal norms, we define the transgressors as law breakers, and have a criminal system to deal with them. People take precautions against them. In the same way I expect to walk into a pub and not get punched in the face, I expect to take part in an open source project and not shit all over someone / be shat on.
Grue3 8y ago
>Do you know who's going to gravitate toward projects with a Code of Merit instead of a Code of Conduct? Who the hell chooses a project to contribute to based on its "code of conduct" (the notion which didn't even exist for much of history of open source)? I thought people write code to solve actual technical problems, not just to flame each other on the Internet.

by jawns 8y ago

brobdingnagians 8y ago

Based on what _you_ define as affronts to dignity. There are a lot of very intelligent people who see problems with society and critique society, but society doesn't like that much. Intelligent people do very good work and tend to get along with other people who think deeply. If an affront to dignity is simply a well thought out critique or parody of society, I can see Code of Merit projects doing very well indeed...

notacoward 8y ago

> who's going to gravitate toward projects with a Code of Merit Nobody. That doesn't even seem to be the intent; it's not so much something to be adopted on its own merit as it is a passive-aggressive critique of real codes of conduct. Note how it repeatedly addresses what one may not do to address any kind of conflict or bad behavior, but it doesn't spell out any mechanisms to enforce even its own rules. Contrary to another commenter who says this can and should exist alongside a code of conduct, I interpret this as (intentionally) undermining any such companion. It's just a not-so-clever way to imply that people who believe in codes of conduct don't believe in meritocracy (paragraph 4), lack technical prowess (para 6), seek disruption and deviation (paras 7 and 14) - all without actually having the guts to come out and say so. Thus it falls afoul of its own injunction to "discuss or debate the idea" (paragraph 9) because it doesn't even mention - let alone address - the arguments in favor of what it seeks to destroy.

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

a 'code of conduct' is a social weapon

crispyambulance 8y ago

I have never understood why people feel strongly about "Code of Conduct" statements. It seems insane to me that someone would profoundly object to guidelines that effectively say "don't be an asshole". But it happens! There are people rage-quitting stackoverflow/stackexchange communities expressly because of they can't abide with the new initiatives/CoC that say one has to be nice and get along with others. I guess this is yet another manifestation of that impulse. Maybe someday someone will write up a psychological analysis of this kind of behavior. I sure don't understand it.

pbowyer 8y ago
> Maybe someday someone will write up a psychological analysis of this kind of behavior. I would like to read that; both what's driving the thinking behind adoption, and the responses. You could apply it to any organisation that requires you to sign up to its rules before joining. > It seems insane to me that someone would profoundly object to guidelines that effectively say "don't be an asshole". Does this help? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  > Does this help? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200 Very well put. But I still can't fathom a _real_ situation where CoC would cause me to reconsider participation, let-alone quit and look for alternatives which serve up something like that "Code of Merit". In the high-profile spaces which have implemented CoC's, they've been a reaction to long-established patterns of bad behavior (I am thinking specifically about stackoverflow). It remains to be seen whether the CoC in stackoverflow helps, but I don't think it hurts. In general, I think online communities are much more prone by being overrun with assholes than face-to-face communities. In the case of stackoverflow, they've game-ified the interactions to such an extent that it has become a very weird place to ask a question. In their quest for quantifiable objectivity, they've attracted personality types that think it's OK to be hostile in order to satisfy what they think "the mission" of stackoverflow is. It has gotten bad enough that people are reacting and their new CoC is their attempt at making amends.

pbowyer 8y ago

> I do take issue with many codes of conduct in the tech space, because I think they tend to be written in a bubble world where everyone assumes that everyone else thinks just like them, but a Code of Merit sounds like it's even more problematic. I take issue with them because a Codes of Conduct doesn't make a space safe. And also because if we need a written list of what behaviour is tolerated, we have a much greater problem than a code of conduct will solve. I've seen people write about the former; I haven't about the latter. I find a CoC offputting because it equates me with the lowest of the low. It says I can't be trusted to behave like a decent human being and need to be told what's right and what's wrong, like being back at school. I also see it as darker than "assumes that everyone else thinks just like them". Some - not all - are about controlling the world into the form the CoC proponent(s) want it to be. The CoC goes beyond its words and into society. Neither do I support the Meritocracy thing, as I've had it used on me too many times by people who are super-smart and see that as a reason to be jerks.

pjc50 8y ago
> It says I can't be trusted to behave like a decent human being and need to be told what's right and what's wrong. Do you leave your door unlocked and your keys in your car? If not, aren't you assuming that there are some people out there who can't be trusted? If I come to your house and find it locked, should I be insulted that you've not "trusted me to behave like a decent human being"?
- pbowyer 8y ago
  > Do you leave your door unlocked and your keys in your car? If not, aren't you assuming that there are some people out there who can't be trusted? If I come to your house and find it locked, should I be insulted that you've not "trusted me to behave like a decent human being"? Are you meaning to equate those who don't follow CoC's to criminals? My response would be that those are societal norms, we define the transgressors as law breakers, and have a criminal system to deal with them. People take precautions against them. In the same way I expect to walk into a pub and not get punched in the face, I expect to take part in an open source project and not shit all over someone / be shat on.

Grue3 8y ago

>Do you know who's going to gravitate toward projects with a Code of Merit instead of a Code of Conduct? Who the hell chooses a project to contribute to based on its "code of conduct" (the notion which didn't even exist for much of history of open source)? I thought people write code to solve actual technical problems, not just to flame each other on the Internet.