4 ms·

> 2) The CoC became a tool for power plays. For a few bad apples, the CoC became a list of gotchas that they could use as a power play against others. At one po

> 2) The CoC became a tool for power plays. For a few bad apples, the CoC became a list of gotchas that they could use as a power play against others. At one point we had someone reading every Slack conversation and code review just to call out possible CoC violations (remember, this includes things like using emojis in code review) so they could call other people out on their violations. Substantiative conversations moved to private messages or in-person conversations. Not healthy. Partially solved by adding a CoC rule about minding your own business and explaining healthy ways to share the CoC with others. I've seen this happen too. Not for code reviews, but for process rules in general. IMO the key issue is that rules can't be used as a substitute for good judgement, and bad judgement needs to be an explicitly fire-able performance metric. Unfortunately, it's really hard to make sure "good judgement" is educated and constantly re-evaluated, and not just whatever baggage the person carries (misconceptions at best, outright ageism/sexism/racism at worst). From the perspective of leadership, this is a tough but solvable problem: read about people management and sociology diversely and avidly, establish actually anonymous lines of feedback for ground level employees to upper management, and set a precedent for firing jerks promptly. From the perspective of an employee facing bad management, good luck fixing that. It's probably easier to just find a new job.

SkyBelow 7y ago
But that sounds like an inconsistently enforced rule which means selectively applied, eventually done so on factors that would be considered unacceptable if written down. If a rule is written down, I'm prefer it be fully enforced other than being used as a club to selectively bludgeon certain individuals. Yes, at first it will be used against those who 'deserve' it based on some social metric. But how long before it is used against unattractive people more than attractive people (see Halo effect) or used against people with less social skills more than those with greater charisma? I've seen it happen one too many times to think the new rule won't end up with the same abuses.
- munchbunny 7y ago
  > But that sounds like an inconsistently enforced rule which means selectively applied, eventually done so on factors that would be considered unacceptable if written down. You're going to have to pick a position on the spectrum between always-enforced rules and purely honor codes (and social pressure). We know the former fails because hard and fast rules can be and are gamed. We know honor codes and social pressure only keep honest people honest. So in practice, where on this spectrum do you stand? If it's your company, or team, or club, or whatever other gathering of humans, you have to make a choice on this question.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    It's something I have spent a lot of time thinking about, and while I have yet to reach a conclusion, I believe in a function that approaches always enforced rules as penalty for breaking the rules increases. When the penalty is high, the harm the average player feels from someone gaming the rules is preferable to the harm they feel from having the rules selectively applied to them. I also strongly encourage pointing out the 'real rules' that the written rules are enforced by when they are selectively enforced. Many times they are much harder to tolerate once called out.
    - munchbunny 7y ago
      What you're talking about here is creating a robust mechanism for monitoring, investigating, and revising the rule system, which I think we both agree about. My point is that if you are a leader, there is a general approach to make sure your organization has that. Not so much as a peon. To bring it back to your original point, you expressed a clear preference for a letter-of-the-law approach, and for rules that are always applied and always enforced. You place the burden of fairness on the creator of the rule instead of the enforcer. That's an understandable approach. I don't agree now, but I did at one time, so let's run with it. How would you define guidelines/rules for code reviews specifically, or engineering culture in general? Would you? How would you remediate brilliant jerks? How would you measure and incentivize working well with the rest of the team/company?
      - 7y ago
chapium 7y ago
The pattern I see is the person spearheading code of conduct is quarantined in their own office so the rest of the team doesn't have to put up with them. Not necessarily managers.

SkyBelow 7y ago

But that sounds like an inconsistently enforced rule which means selectively applied, eventually done so on factors that would be considered unacceptable if written down. If a rule is written down, I'm prefer it be fully enforced other than being used as a club to selectively bludgeon certain individuals. Yes, at first it will be used against those who 'deserve' it based on some social metric. But how long before it is used against unattractive people more than attractive people (see Halo effect) or used against people with less social skills more than those with greater charisma? I've seen it happen one too many times to think the new rule won't end up with the same abuses.

munchbunny 7y ago
> But that sounds like an inconsistently enforced rule which means selectively applied, eventually done so on factors that would be considered unacceptable if written down. You're going to have to pick a position on the spectrum between always-enforced rules and purely honor codes (and social pressure). We know the former fails because hard and fast rules can be and are gamed. We know honor codes and social pressure only keep honest people honest. So in practice, where on this spectrum do you stand? If it's your company, or team, or club, or whatever other gathering of humans, you have to make a choice on this question.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  It's something I have spent a lot of time thinking about, and while I have yet to reach a conclusion, I believe in a function that approaches always enforced rules as penalty for breaking the rules increases. When the penalty is high, the harm the average player feels from someone gaming the rules is preferable to the harm they feel from having the rules selectively applied to them. I also strongly encourage pointing out the 'real rules' that the written rules are enforced by when they are selectively enforced. Many times they are much harder to tolerate once called out.
  - munchbunny 7y ago
    What you're talking about here is creating a robust mechanism for monitoring, investigating, and revising the rule system, which I think we both agree about. My point is that if you are a leader, there is a general approach to make sure your organization has that. Not so much as a peon. To bring it back to your original point, you expressed a clear preference for a letter-of-the-law approach, and for rules that are always applied and always enforced. You place the burden of fairness on the creator of the rule instead of the enforcer. That's an understandable approach. I don't agree now, but I did at one time, so let's run with it. How would you define guidelines/rules for code reviews specifically, or engineering culture in general? Would you? How would you remediate brilliant jerks? How would you measure and incentivize working well with the rest of the team/company?
    - 7y ago

chapium 7y ago

The pattern I see is the person spearheading code of conduct is quarantined in their own office so the rest of the team doesn't have to put up with them. Not necessarily managers.