4 ms·
A key part of "implemented well" is the interpretation and execution by whoever is in charge. Unfortunately, there isn't really a way to know, or ensure, that a
by avhon1 6y ago
A key part of "implemented well" is the interpretation and execution by whoever is in charge. Unfortunately, there isn't really a way to know, or ensure, that a group of people will act in good faith and accordance with a document that they say they adhere to. That seems to have been part of the problem here -- Mr. Howard notes several ways in which the committee acted against their own code.
I think this is (part of) why many people are against CoCs. They are a tool that good leadership can use to be better, but a tool that bad leadership does use to be worse.
- wbl 6y agoBad leadership is going to make bad decisions regardless.
- marcinzm 6y agoThe impact of their decisions however depends on the level of power they wield. A CoC gives them more power to wield.
- friendlybus 6y agoHence systems that are designed to resist abuse, like some versions of democracy and internal police agencies.
- kemonocode 6y agoYou can have the most flawlessly written, beautiful and well-meaning CoC, yet it won't do any good if it's interpreted by little despots. I do agree Codes of Conduct are a tool like any other, but it's a tool that I've personally seen being misused so many times, it admittedly starts raising red flags. And if there's something human beings excel at, it's in finding patterns, no matter if they're poorly justified or not. Subconsciously, I'm already avoiding contributing directly to projects with strict CoCs, and it's a bit painful when I do realize it, even if I've never willingly (or unwillingly, by virtue of keeping most communication with maintainers short, polite, straight to the point and erring on the side of caution) broken any.