3 ms·

So that’s an easy way of making a lot of people either unable to contribute, or in breach of the CoC? Where did this come from? Without having any idea of the

So that’s an easy way of making a lot of people either unable to contribute, or in breach of the CoC? Where did this come from? Without having any idea of the background this reads like some conservative Christian who adopted a weird CoC as a reaction to what they felt was “too progressive” CoCs for other projects? I may be way off the mark there though. He’s free to do whatever he wants of course but isn’t this a fork risk?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BizarreByte 4y ago
> So that’s an easy way of making a lot of people either unable to contribute, or in breach of the CoC? The average CoC we’re all more familiar with does the exact same thing, so I don’t think this is a valid criticism.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  Apparently people aren’t even required to follow the rule. Which makes it an even weirder thing to state in the CoC. I think having useless or unnecessary things in the CoC is “bad” is valid criticism of it tbh.
  - josteink 4y ago
    One might say it’s a great way to criticise the absurdity of CoCs in general.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    You could try reading the page you're discussing instead of speculating about it, they address that literally in the first paragraph.
    - alkonaut 4y ago
      Comments like that one are, ironically, clearly against some code of conduct of this site. In fairness though - I agree with it.
  - armitron 4y ago
    Having The Rule be optional is not useless, it’s there so it can at least act as food for thought. I also find it highly amusing compared to the typical progressive garbage.
  - BizarreByte 4y ago
    They’re pretty clear it’s just there to check off a box for projects and companies that wish to use SQLite. I find it odd that would be a requirement, but that’s the world we live in I guess.
Tomte 4y ago
> that’s an easy way of making a lot of people either unable to contribute SQLite is closed to outside contributions. > but isn’t this a fork risk Sure. But don't expect a fork to succeed beyond the original. It's not like egcs/gcc where existing developers were unhappy and wanted to break free from perceived dysfunction.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  > SQLite is closed to outside contributions. There is some group that may change that is “the contributors” which are presumably bound by the CoC. I also assume this group changes from time to time. Are you sure SQLite doesn’t accept outside contributions? Usually for CoCs you mean the whole project including for any contribution such as bug reports, which are some times more “open” than code contributions. Apparently the rule isn’t required (which is even stranger, so the whole thing is just pointless anyway).
  - Tomte 4y ago
    That group is pretty stable. It's employees of the main author.
- SQLite 4y ago
  > SQLite is closed to outside contributions. Incorrect. Anyone is allowed to contributed to the SQLite code base. There is no religious test, nor even any code-of-conducts requirements for being able to contribute to SQLite. This has always been the case. But the barrier to making contributions is high - higher than many other projects. There are two main reasons for this: (1) Any contributions need to be able to demonstrate, with legal rigor, that they are in the public domain. Otherwise, if copyrighted code were introduced, SQLite itself would cease to be in the public domain. The SQLite project places a lot of emphasis on provenance of the code. (2) Contributions need to demonstrate that they will be useful to a very wide audience, and that they will not diminish our ability to maintain the code for decades into the future. Most of the effort in a project like SQLite is long-term maintenance. People might be really proud of the work they have done on some patch over a day, or week, or month. But the amount of work needed to generate the patch is nothing compared to the amount of work they are asking the developers to put into testing, documenting, and maintaining that patch for the life of the project (currently projected to be 27 more years). Many people, and even a few companies, have contributed code to SQLite over the years. I have legal documentation for all such contributions in the firesafe in my office. We are able to track every byte of the SQLite source code back to its original creator. The project has been and continues to be open to outside contributions, as long as those contributions meet high standards of provenance and maintainability.
throwaway744678 4y ago
Section 2.1 > No one is required to follow The Rule, to know The Rule, or even to think that The Rule is a good idea. The Founder of SQLite believes that anyone who follows The Rule will live a happier and more productive life, but individuals are free to dispute or ignore that advice if they wish.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  That does help. But having a second paragraph making the first “rule” optional tbh is just making it sound strange.
PKop 4y ago
He doesn't care if you contribute
- verdverm 4y ago
  A valid question may be, "would the author accept contributions from believers of other religions?" Perhaps the author does not enforce much of their CoE? How would they even verify many of the rules?
  - yawaramin 4y ago
    The overriding concern is not religion, it's provenance of the code: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34480732 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34480732

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BizarreByte 4y ago

> So that’s an easy way of making a lot of people either unable to contribute, or in breach of the CoC? The average CoC we’re all more familiar with does the exact same thing, so I don’t think this is a valid criticism.

alkonaut 4y ago
Apparently people aren’t even required to follow the rule. Which makes it an even weirder thing to state in the CoC. I think having useless or unnecessary things in the CoC is “bad” is valid criticism of it tbh.
- josteink 4y ago
  One might say it’s a great way to criticise the absurdity of CoCs in general.
- luckylion 4y ago
  You could try reading the page you're discussing instead of speculating about it, they address that literally in the first paragraph.
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    Comments like that one are, ironically, clearly against some code of conduct of this site. In fairness though - I agree with it.
- armitron 4y ago
  Having The Rule be optional is not useless, it’s there so it can at least act as food for thought. I also find it highly amusing compared to the typical progressive garbage.
- BizarreByte 4y ago
  They’re pretty clear it’s just there to check off a box for projects and companies that wish to use SQLite. I find it odd that would be a requirement, but that’s the world we live in I guess.

Tomte 4y ago

> that’s an easy way of making a lot of people either unable to contribute SQLite is closed to outside contributions. > but isn’t this a fork risk Sure. But don't expect a fork to succeed beyond the original. It's not like egcs/gcc where existing developers were unhappy and wanted to break free from perceived dysfunction.

alkonaut 4y ago
> SQLite is closed to outside contributions. There is some group that may change that is “the contributors” which are presumably bound by the CoC. I also assume this group changes from time to time. Are you sure SQLite doesn’t accept outside contributions? Usually for CoCs you mean the whole project including for any contribution such as bug reports, which are some times more “open” than code contributions. Apparently the rule isn’t required (which is even stranger, so the whole thing is just pointless anyway).
- Tomte 4y ago
  That group is pretty stable. It's employees of the main author.
SQLite 4y ago
> SQLite is closed to outside contributions. Incorrect. Anyone is allowed to contributed to the SQLite code base. There is no religious test, nor even any code-of-conducts requirements for being able to contribute to SQLite. This has always been the case. But the barrier to making contributions is high - higher than many other projects. There are two main reasons for this: (1) Any contributions need to be able to demonstrate, with legal rigor, that they are in the public domain. Otherwise, if copyrighted code were introduced, SQLite itself would cease to be in the public domain. The SQLite project places a lot of emphasis on provenance of the code. (2) Contributions need to demonstrate that they will be useful to a very wide audience, and that they will not diminish our ability to maintain the code for decades into the future. Most of the effort in a project like SQLite is long-term maintenance. People might be really proud of the work they have done on some patch over a day, or week, or month. But the amount of work needed to generate the patch is nothing compared to the amount of work they are asking the developers to put into testing, documenting, and maintaining that patch for the life of the project (currently projected to be 27 more years). Many people, and even a few companies, have contributed code to SQLite over the years. I have legal documentation for all such contributions in the firesafe in my office. We are able to track every byte of the SQLite source code back to its original creator. The project has been and continues to be open to outside contributions, as long as those contributions meet high standards of provenance and maintainability.

throwaway744678 4y ago

Section 2.1 > No one is required to follow The Rule, to know The Rule, or even to think that The Rule is a good idea. The Founder of SQLite believes that anyone who follows The Rule will live a happier and more productive life, but individuals are free to dispute or ignore that advice if they wish.

alkonaut 4y ago
That does help. But having a second paragraph making the first “rule” optional tbh is just making it sound strange.

PKop 4y ago

He doesn't care if you contribute

verdverm 4y ago
A valid question may be, "would the author accept contributions from believers of other religions?" Perhaps the author does not enforce much of their CoE? How would they even verify many of the rules?
- yawaramin 4y ago
  The overriding concern is not religion, it's provenance of the code: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34480732 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34480732