3 ms·

I don't see any reason you can't have an open source project which enforces a strong code of conduct, creates a "safe space" for members sensitive to various th

I don't see any reason you can't have an open source project which enforces a strong code of conduct, creates a "safe space" for members sensitive to various things, which doesn't tolerate rudeness, jerks, bullies, etc. Or one with a "show me the code, stick and stones" ethos. I also don't think that has to be every open source project. Put another way Tumblr and 4chan can exist on the same internet and we can complain about both. I think what perturbs me is this sense that the people who actually contribute to f/oss are less and less in control and I think this is largely what Raymond was talking about. "Code of conducts" inherently drive power away from the contributors to some sort of moderator enforcing the CoC. More and more I see this almost stereotypical situation of somebody who doesn't contribute to a project demanding adherence to some progressive shibboleth, saying that the project and themselves and people they know have been victimised by violence due to said lack of adherence. Which comes off as mutinous.

catalogia 7y ago
> "Code of conducts" inherently drive power away from the contributors to some sort of moderator enforcing the CoC. Could we have both? e.g. CoC moderators elected by contributors from the ranks of contributors?
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Debian does that (indirectly, as in the DPL is elected and the buck stops with them), and people still complain and disagree about CoC-related decisions.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    I doubt there has ever been any serious democratic process in which some participants didn't complain. That seems to be the nature of the beast; if you want to suppress complainers you leave democracy behind and enter into the realm of authoritarianism.
- maemilius 7y ago
  You're still centralizing a power. It would probably be better to have some rule that's based on quorum and consensus than specifically elected people. E.g. at least some percentage (say 60%) of active contributors must weigh in and some percentage of those (perhaps a simple majority) must agree that a violation took place. Granted, that's still open to abuse if the quorum requirements are small enough (how small would depend on the quantity of abusers), but I feel it's more in spirit than centralizing the power into a sub-group. I will further grant that it's likely that, in any group, only a subset will care enough about these things to police them, so the point may be moot.
- frenchyatwork 7y ago
  Isn't this what ultimately happens anyway? If the CoC moderators go against the will of the contributors, they can always fork the project.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    The maintainers aren't likely to do that though, for a multitude of reasons. Why not let the CoC-people fork it and see how much better they can do it? Why would we need to oust the maintainers to see whether they are better at maintaining the project they built than some random person from Twitter that decided this is the project they're going to inject themselves into today?
josteink 7y ago
> Which comes off as mutinous. More like infiltration.

catalogia 7y ago

> "Code of conducts" inherently drive power away from the contributors to some sort of moderator enforcing the CoC. Could we have both? e.g. CoC moderators elected by contributors from the ranks of contributors?

zozbot234 7y ago
Debian does that (indirectly, as in the DPL is elected and the buck stops with them), and people still complain and disagree about CoC-related decisions.
- catalogia 7y ago
  I doubt there has ever been any serious democratic process in which some participants didn't complain. That seems to be the nature of the beast; if you want to suppress complainers you leave democracy behind and enter into the realm of authoritarianism.
maemilius 7y ago
You're still centralizing a power. It would probably be better to have some rule that's based on quorum and consensus than specifically elected people. E.g. at least some percentage (say 60%) of active contributors must weigh in and some percentage of those (perhaps a simple majority) must agree that a violation took place. Granted, that's still open to abuse if the quorum requirements are small enough (how small would depend on the quantity of abusers), but I feel it's more in spirit than centralizing the power into a sub-group. I will further grant that it's likely that, in any group, only a subset will care enough about these things to police them, so the point may be moot.
frenchyatwork 7y ago
Isn't this what ultimately happens anyway? If the CoC moderators go against the will of the contributors, they can always fork the project.
- luckylion 7y ago
  The maintainers aren't likely to do that though, for a multitude of reasons. Why not let the CoC-people fork it and see how much better they can do it? Why would we need to oust the maintainers to see whether they are better at maintaining the project they built than some random person from Twitter that decided this is the project they're going to inject themselves into today?

josteink 7y ago

> Which comes off as mutinous. More like infiltration.