11 ms·

Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

146 points by jonymo 1y ago

A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
> DHH condemned detailed and strict CoC like the Contributor Covenant as a “trojan horse” that should be purged from projects. ESR went even further, asserting that CoC are nothing more than a “tool for troublemakers” and that the best course of action is to delete them entirely from projects. At this point, in 2025, does anybody seriously doubt that they're a "tool for troublemakers"? A lot of people who would otherwise contribute see a hyper-particular CoC, written by an HR type or an aspiring lawyer, and walk away. Others don't bother to read the CoC and may later be dragged through coals over something exceedingly minor, despite their contributions. In open-source, the best policy is to avoid CoCs and avoid those who write and promote them.
- warp 1y ago
  If having a CoC keeps folks like DHH and ESR out of a particular project, then I think the CoC is serving a valuable purpose.
- swiftcoder 1y ago
  So the guy who regularly writes about how brown people are invading his country, and the guy who thinks women in tech are all trying to entrap him with rape accusations... don't think CoCs are a good idea? Colour me surprised
  - throwaway2046 1y ago
    You can address the contents of the article and the views expressed by the author directly without resorting to ad hominem.
    - swiftcoder 1y ago
      I don't see how that is ad hominem - those are the expressed views of DHH and ESR, as they have repeatedly placed in writing, of their own free will. They are also explicitly the type of views that CoCs are designed to protect contributors from, hence why DHH and ESR would be opposed to CoCs in general.
    - KingMob 1y ago
      Life is not a high-school debate club. An _ad hominem_ accusation only really works if the attack is unrelated. I don't know about ESR, but DHH has acted in ways that make it difficult to believe he is making a good-faith, unbiased argument on CoCs, which means I'm not obligated to reciprocate and treat his argument fairly. (DHH oversaw a list at 37Signals making racist fun of customer names, and overruled his employees who complained, eventually leading to a mass walkout.) To put it in Bayesian terms, the prior that he's making a bad faith argument is higher than any random person, and should be treated as such.
- florkbork 1y ago
  Let's restate your points a bit, but using the words "ethics" rather than CoC. Is publishing an ethical standpoint a "trouble making"? Depends, doesn't it? What if you examine the most common top ethical viewpoints you are aware of. For me, it's loud groups like say, PETA, Extinction Rebellion, etc who are fairly populist. Are they making trouble? Sure. But for whom? Would you personally do what these people are doing? Probably no. Would you personally do what the people they are "making trouble" for are doing? (In my example, Animal harm, empowering climate change?) I am going to suggest that you would probably say "no, I don't want to harm things/people/etc; as I would probably feel bad for doing it and being personally responsible". If thought through like this - even if your examples of ethics are not what I chose - can you see the value in a strong, clear ethical position, even if it's to warn people? Can you see that it might challenge authority (trouble making), but that is not a bad thing a lot of the time?
  - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
    > Let's restate your points a bit, but using the words "ethics" rather than CoC. Is publishing an ethical standpoint a "trouble making"? Most software projects are ethically neutral and don't need a "standpoint." In tech, those "ethical standpoints" are often tacked-on by people who want to use them as a tool to exercise social control over other contributors, including project founders and visionaries. (There tends to be, in any given Western organization over n people in size, a clique that's really into this.) I have no idea how CoCs are used in PETA, but obviously groups that have ethics as their core focus -- which includes religions and social welfare groups -- have long lists of proscriptions, policies, etc. I don't think that any of it necessarily applies to open-source software, though. It's apples to oranges. > If thought through like this - even if your examples of ethics are not what I chose - can you see the value in a strong, clear ethical position, even if it's to warn people? Well, that's precisely my point: The CoC itself is the warning. It's usually bad news in itself -- an exposed surface that's weaponizable against contributors who give to the project in good faith.
  - yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
    I think you should understand quite how bad your examples are. I understand the examples you gave are given in the best of intentions, but this reads as pure blissful ignorance. PETA literally funded a terrorist convicted of arson. > A page from the 1995 annual tax return (form 990) of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), showing a $45,200 payment for the ``support committee'' of Rodney Coronado, a felon. Mr. Coronado was convicted of arson in federal court for the 1992 firebombing of a Michigan State University research lab. --- > Would you personally do what the people they are "making trouble" for are doing? Would I eat meat? Yes. Would I keep animals as pets? Yes. Do I think it's ethical for humans to use animals for service, e.g., guide dogs for the blind? Yes. Do I think it's ethical to use animal models in medical research? Yes. All of these things, PETA are against. Further: - https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/animal-rights-extremism-and-ecoterrorism https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/animal-righ... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Coronado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Coronado - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg77615/html/CHRG-107hhrg77615.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg77615/html/C...
- HelloNurse 1y ago
  Personally, I assume one or more problematic activists behind any prominent project CoC. Some might be well-intentioned but unreasonable and hard to discuss with, some might be dangerously fanatic and a constant threat, some might be power-hungry manipulators giving themselves leverage, all are a liability for the project. Normal people shouldn't need anything more than normal morality and acceptable manners to be good project contributors.
burnt-resistor 1y ago
CoCs are like having faith in some prerequisite magical spell is first necessary to control and compel people to behave in a proscribed manner when, in reality, they are more like EULAs and Cider House Rules that (almost) no one reads. Paperwork cannot transform people. Perhaps their limited marginal value is existing to show that community is defended and there is a clear and thoughtful process to arbitrate and resolve conflict rather than falling into either extremes of absentee inaction or heavy-handed, summary, expedient, arbitrary expulsion.
- WesolyKubeczek 1y ago
  > Perhaps their limited marginal value is existing to show there is a clear and thoughtful process to arbitrate and resolve conflict and I have a slightly used bridge to sell.
codeduck 1y ago
CoC are like club rules. Useless - except for when you want to make an example of someone.
- lelanthran 1y ago
  > CoC are like club rules. Useless - except for when you want to make an example of someone. That, and also for selective enforcement.
serial_dev 1y ago
The thing is that codes of conduct do not help honest actors “regulate” and deal with troublemakers. I used to organize meetups and I visited meetups organized by others who had code of conduct, and I just never understood what they were hoping to achieve with that. If someone behaves poorly, you can point at a document all you want, but it doesn’t help you deal that the problematic individual. A document that you put in a markdown file is not enforceable. And we didn’t even talk about how it is being misused. People would point to these documents to silence and shut out people they don’t like and at the same time tolerate poor behavior that are clearly in violation of code of conduct by people they do like or whose politics or opinions they share. It is all just a charade to help you pretend that you are impartial.
- curtisblaine 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - chrislo 1y ago
    What evidence do you have for that? I was involved in adopting a code of conduct for a local tech meetup and we did that because a couple of incidents that weren't handled very well left other people feeling unsafe and unwelcome. Having some guidelines in place reassured folks that we took those concerns seriously and gave us a framework to deal with unwanted behaviour.
    - arpinum 1y ago
      Anti-meritocracy was in in some CoCs, arguing in its favour was a reason for exclusion from an event / project. Even if the argument happened somewhere else on the internet and not in the project.
      - vkou 1y ago
        Whenever I see someone dying on the hill of fighting for 'meritocracy', in the words of another poster in this subthread, I have found them to be: > ...a zealot about their cause. Deflecting and uncompromising, very unagreeable. They would be the last persons to know how to make a community comfy. ... And typically with a giant chip on their shoulder. The real world's a little bit more complicated than the spherical cows that the near-religious faith in it requires.
curtisblaine 1y ago
CoCs are one of the reasons why I choose to not contribute. I don't enjoy the risk of someone with an axe to grind to drag me into some absurd GitHub comments drama and feel justified by some generic wording on the CoC.
- Mashimo 1y ago
  But could they not do the same without a CoC?
  - cybrox 1y ago
    Yes, that's the point of why CoCs are essentially useless. Humans should be able to interact politely in any setting and if they don't, the issue needs to be settled with good old human interaction anyways.
    - rpdillon 1y ago
      This is how I feel. I treat the presence of a code of conduct as a sign that, particularly for small projects, the folks running the project don't have experience leading others. Always comes down to the relationship, the individuals involved, and the way things are communicated.
  - ricardobeat 1y ago
    They could, but then it’s their word vs yours, not you vs sacred Code-of-Conduct.
  - lelanthran 1y ago
    > But could they not do the same without a CoC? Sure, but someone who went to the trouble to get their view enforced in writing is probably already a zealot I don't want to deal with. Depends a lot on the group size, too - a few hundred contributors probably needs some rules written down. A few dozen? Not so much.
- silisili 1y ago
  Same, but for slightly different reasons. I was a big open source contributor of a few well known projects, but the CoC stuff just kinda soured me on it all. Not because I enjoy reading or writing hate speech or anything, but these were places that didn't tend to have any obvious problems with troublemakers, so it felt self congratulatory. And don't even get me started on the sheer amount of bikeshedding the discussions around it became, mostly from people who'd never even contributed to the project. It suddenly made me realize there were probably more productive and less frustrating ways to spend my time.
trwcock 1y ago
Is programming lame enough yet that we can get away from everything being done by hr and get back to doing cool things with weird people?
- k33n 1y ago
  Hopefully! And it takes every kind of weird to make it fun. You don't have to like or hang with everyone in a community. But sometimes the people you don't understand personally wind up being the ones you will respect the most from a skill/talent perspective. A strong foundation of mutual respect built up over time is how you create real tolerance and even change minds.
- thrance 1y ago
  Define "weird people".
  - account42 1y ago
    Nerds.
- swiftcoder 1y ago
  It really depends whether "weird people" means people with unusual hobbies/sexualities/clothes/hair/etc, or "weird people" means the ones who want to keep all the first category of people out...
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    Not for people with boundaries. I've done work I was absolutely delighted with in both process and product with people whose views I detest. If you can't grow up enough to do that, you can't have a civilization. If I have to like you in order for us not to fight, I warn you that we're going to have to fight.
    - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
      What was the most detestable view?
squigz 1y ago
It seems some people need to re-read the title and article and consider the words "heavy", "bureaucratic" and the like No, CoCs - or rules in general - are not inherently bad. HN has some, which the moderators and the community enforce well, and it's generally one of the best platforms on the Internet for intelligent discussion. Yes, heavy CoCs can be weaponized and abused, if there is little or no trust between the community and its leaders. But with or without a CoC, such a community will always be prone to such abuse. You think moderators need to establish a CoC to push their politics on people if they want? How does that even make sense? Why not just... do that, without a CoC?
- yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
  > You think moderators need to establish a CoC to push their politics on people if they want? How does that even make sense? Why not just... do that, without a CoC? I don't think this is what generally happens, or what people are wary of. I think group participants [sometimes] coerce moderators into establishing a CoC in order to have a tool to reach for in service of silencing voices they regard as "problematic".
  - squigz 1y ago
    > silencing voices they regard as "problematic". I'm going to push past this extraordinarily bad faith framing. I'm going to assume you're referring to people who are made to feel uncomfortable or are harassed by other members of the community. So if that community doesn't have a CoC, and those members talk to the moderators, and the moderators take action... is that coercion too? Is that the moderators or those members pushing their political views on the community? Should the moderators just not do anything?
    - yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
      > I'm going to assume you're referring to people who are made to feel uncomfortable or are harassed by other members of the community. It has been my experience that there are both members of groups typically regarded as marginalised who have been harrassed, and also members of groups typically regarded as marginalised who harass others. There are surely more variations of this too. My most recent experience of this was a member of a group typically regarded as marginalised harassing one of my colleagues — who is also a member of a group typically regarded as marginalised, but perhaps less so if you subscribe to the legitimacy of intersectionality — at a software development conference with an established CoC. The incident was reported, and the repercussions for the harasser amounted to exactly nil. > So if that community doesn't have a CoC, and those members talk to the moderators, and the moderators take action... is that coercion too? No. > Is that the moderators or those members pushing their political views on the community? That really depends on the circumstance. > Should the moderators just not do anything? Moderators should take action on CoC violations as proportionately, fairly, and impartially as they can. > I'm going to push past this extraordinarily bad faith framing. It is extraordinarily tiring and depressing that anything proffered that contradicts the orthodoxy of the culture that most readily endorses the establishment of CoCs is immediately dismissed as an argument in "bad faith".
w4rh4wk5 1y ago
Maybe a bit of an unpopular opinion here, but I still think the benevolent dictator is the way to go for open-source projects. If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better. However, there's probably a cutoff point for core infrastructure where we should move away from having a single person in charge.
- lelanthran 1y ago
  > Maybe a bit of an unpopular opinion here, but I still think the benevolent dictator is the way to go for open-source projects. If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better. If I start a project that attracts contributors[1], I don't see anything wrong with rejecting someone's CoC "contribution" with "I am the code of conduct. We don't need another one." ================== [1] I try not to do that, btw.
  - tomkarho 1y ago
    "I am the law!" :D
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  > If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better. Yes, but often the projects where this happens are just big enough to where one person cannot realistically maintain their own fork to the same level that users will expect if they are looking to jump ship. What I've seen happen more often than not, is even if the person does attempt a fork, they either get constantly attacked by existing users, or stop working on it within a year, or both.
astanm 1y ago
This, from the Ruby CoC, is key: > Participants are expected to be tolerant of opposing views. If you can't tolerate that others will have different perspectives to you then it means you're likely to be a very difficult and inflexible person to work with.
- pjc50 1y ago
  This is one of those things that falls apart on the actual content. If you have a trans contributor and someone who comes in with trans-eliminationist rhetoric, you can't then turn round and say the trans person is being "inflexible" for refusing to work with them.
  - ishouldbework 1y ago
    [dead]
  - HelloNurse 1y ago
    The correct answer is reacting harshly to "trans-eliminationist rhetoric" from a weird extremist, with an ultimatum or immediate expulsion, before the trans contributor complains.
    - astanm 1y ago
      If someone is posting along the lines of "send them all to the death camps" etc. on the mailing lists or discussion boards, for any group, that would be covered under the other items in the Ruby CoC, where participants are expected not to harass or disparage. Also it would be very off-topic for a programming language forum.
  - astanm 1y ago
    That would be covered under the next part of the Ruby CoC: > Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free from personal attacks and disparaging remarks. And anyway, rhetoric which advocates for killing groups of people would be very off-topic for a programming language discussion forum. Unlikely it would come up in conversation except for deliberate trolling.
satisfice 1y ago
I want a code of conduct that explicitly allows debate, disagreement, and normalizes hurting other people’s feelings with your words. What matters is that people are operating in good faith. I would also say that IF you have been accepted as a member of a community then you and your feelings must matter to that community unless and until you are ejected from the community. There needs to be a system for accepting and expelling people, and that system should rest on the judgment of people that the community has selected as trustworthy (until and unless those people are expelled).
- vkou 1y ago
  > What matters is that people are operating in good faith. Any asshole can claim to be acting in good faith, regardless of what they've done.
  - majorchord 1y ago
    You're getting downvoted but I think this is absolutely right... people are simply going to disagree with each others' definition of "good faith."
    - HankStallone 1y ago
      Right. Adam tells Ben to go die in a fire, and Ben says, "Come on, moderators, that's obviously a violation of the CoC." Then Adam says, "No, because I was only responding to Ben's offensive and unwelcoming language when he referred to a 'master' repository. I've compiled a list of Ben's violations, and I demand a review according to section 3, subsection D of the code...." A good moderator will shut that nonsense down immediately, but a good moderator wouldn't need a CoC to do it. All the CoC does is give the troublemaker a tool to start playing rules lawyer, in the hope that the moderator will get tired of it and give in. Some people think the answer is to have a CoC that's too simple for rules lawyering, like a one line "Be excellent to each other." But even that can be twisted, so it would be better as a project motto than as an official CoC.
      - 1y ago
3form 1y ago
I'm not very involved in the topic, so my POV might be very wrong - but most effective enforcement, from my overall life experience, is having someone act as a "bad guy" and sharply deal consequences to the people that behave like assholes. I feel that having a detailed COC, while a very good sentiment in theory, in practice must bring about people who will try their best to skirt around the edge of COC and make trouble for the maintainers - who I expect want to stay "nice", but they're forced to act harshly in the end anyway.
StopDisinfo910 1y ago
CoC always appeared to me as a US issue which could pretty much be safely ignored by anyone living in the rest of the world. I generally dislike how they tend to be written as objective rules while actually being imperialist but most of them can safely be boiled down to act like a normal professional person. The implied subtext of "avoid topic the US finds morally objectionable and when in doubt act like an American would" is what I dislike from a theorical point of view but the truth is, it doesn't really matter on a day to day basis. So yes, CoC seems mostly harmless but also mostly useless. I tend to agree with the article point that if this is the case, keeping them short seems optimal.
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  The problem I have seen with them is that they get weaponized. Someone can point to a specific rule in the CoC that has very subjective language in it, and claim that you are violating the rules, when really they're just doing that to silence opinions they don't like. This is further proven when any attempts to discuss said rule/policy are immediately shut down with even more staunch black-and-white opinions and zero empathy... even if you wait until later to discuss it in a different setting.
- squigz 1y ago
  > could pretty much be safely ignored by anyone living in the rest of the world. While it would be nice if all the ignorant assholes in the world lived in America... this is not the case :)
  - poncho_romero 1y ago
    No, but Americans are more litigious than everyone else
- lenkite 1y ago
  The bigger the CoC, the more toxic the project - this is bog-standard law.
IlikeKitties 1y ago
The only code of conduct that was ever required was the license.md file.
buyucu 1y ago
Codes of Conduct are pushed by corporate types you want open source projects to act and behave more corporate fashion. I've never seen them make things better.
squigz 1y ago
A relevant blog post posted recently among the Nix drama https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/ https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/
lowsong 1y ago
A big part of a CoC that this article, as most discussions on the topic, miss is that they provide a signal to new contributors from marginalized groups, who may have faced abuse or violence in other spaces, that this community will be safe for them to contribute to and - as many anti-CoC folk like to say - get on with the tech. Not having a CoC doesn't mean a project is going to be unsafe to work in. But it means when another community member refuses to work with you, or belittles your work constantly, there is nothing to be done. For many, why take the risk. This means that projects are starving themselves of contributors because they don't create an environment that is safe. Ruby's "CoC" is actually a fantastic example of why you need to spell it out too. "Participants are expected to be tolerant of opposing views." is often weaponized by abusers who like to paint basic requests like "please use my chosen name" as "not being tolerant".
- Ragnarork 1y ago
  Well a big reason this is missed is people discussing it are not part of these groups and mainly saw this as an annoyance. I can agree that heavy & strict CoCs can be daunting and probably overkill for small open source projects. And they're far from flawless, as shown by the Rust mods resignation incidents. But to say they're useless and anti-meritocratic is to forget (and/or silence) these people that wanted to contribute in an environment where they wouldn't feel threatened (incidentally, sometimes despite being skillful contributors, so much so for the supposed meritocracy of the CoC-less projects). I'm not sure strict CoCs are the answers to these real problems, but this feels like dismissing these problems altogether.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  > to new contributors from marginalized groups, For software projects that are overwhelmingly conducted online the very concept of "marginalized group" is close to irrelevant and meaningless [1]. I think what happens is that some people want to be very, very vocal about whatever "group" they belong to and want to feel offended and oppressed. In recent years, arguments and campaigns against specific technical terms ('master', 'blacklist', even 'legacy code' spring to mind) are examples of this, IMHO. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
noelwelsh 1y ago
Good article. This sentence from the conclusion nails it: > What is needed now is not the unthinking adoption of a one-size-fits-all template, but a “right-sized” approach tailored to the scale, culture, and goals of each individual project. I feel a lot of the heavy CoCs are a product of low-trust cultures, particularly the US, which attempt to replace interpersonal relationships with legalese. This is honestly not necessary in most projects, which are generally high-trust environments.
PlunderBunny 1y ago
I feel like this is similar to civil and criminal laws: When codes of conduct are very detailed, lawyers will argue fine points on the wording. When they are simple and general, people can't be 'rules lawyers', but you need to have authority to enforce decisions, and respect for that authority.
florkbork 1y ago
Yeah, nah. Watch how an open discussion here: https://github.com/nixos/rfcs/pull/98 https://github.com/nixos/rfcs/pull/98 ... devolves into a massive outcry because a bunch of folks not behaving in good faith didn't like "we don't support fascism or bigotry". It reached the level of * Vile sock puppet attacks on a trans individual, who merely kept saying "Fascism, no thanks in this community" * "Denounce the Marxists!" As a rallying cry becomes a talking point If you reflect on the behaviours seen there and ask why is this so heated for proposing consequences for bad behaviour; you may come to the realisation that the advocates of bad behaviour... don't want to be accountable. This post is translated, perhaps some of the nuance is lost. But it hand waves away dhh's behaviour as "controversial figures in the community" If that's genuinely what is believed, I'd like a replacement on this Overton window, thanks! It has been fractured. The article does not consider the consequences or implications of malicious acts, and the harm on others adequately. A clear CoC or similar outlines expected norms, and does not have to be copypasta/is infact better if it is derived from a consensus. It's a statement of what the people with power will hold themselves to, and if that turns out to be a lie - a performative document that is not actually used - newcomers can view the behaviour they observe against that standard; and leave or demand justice if they are wronged. By not publishing an ethical or moral standard you abide by, even if it's a text file with "get bent" in it; you invite people to interact with you with expectations. If you are part of the 1-4% of the population who are sociopaths, you are advocating to hurt people without consequence. If they are part of the 1-4% you are permitting behaviour without recourse. Could you imagine a post advocating for "don't fix security holes because 92-98% of people don't know about exploiting them?" Would that be acceptable? Why would you not state a policy?
- yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
  > If you reflect on the behaviours seen there and ask why is this so heated for proposing consequences for bad behaviour; you may come to the realisation that the advocates of bad behaviour... don't want to be accountable. It seems the problem is that what amounts to "bad behaviour" is poorly defined, and that the detractors of "bad behaviour" can also be guilty of bad behaviour.
- kelnos 1y ago
TylerLives 1y ago
Posts like this always remind me of Vaclav Havel's "The Power of the Powerless". You are completely misunderstanding the original purpose behind the CoC. Here's the relevant part: "The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say. Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests? Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology."
thrance 1y ago
> DHH condemned detailed and strict CoC like the Contributor Covenant as a “trojan horse” that should be purged from projects. Of course he would, he has made several transphobic remarks in the past. Normal people shouldn't take issue with the mere existence of a markdown document that basically says "don't be a dick to people because of who they are". Ostracizing people from projects because you are prejudiced against them, now that hinders open-source. How many potential contributors were scared away by such remarks?
- u_sama 1y ago
  I think the issue with CoC is that they have been used in the past by politically motivated (notably on the left) activists to take control of a project and ensure a political line. You may agree with such a political line like anti-fascism, inclusion and what not. But the issue is that you have opened the door to politics inside what ought to be a technical area, and historically, politics change, the ideas you agree on today will be pushed to more extremes (some you might disagree with) you will not be comfortable with and eventually you will be alienated from them completely. But when that happens, you will have no recourse and will eventually be purged (like those before you, being called the trendy workd of the moment, fascist or woke) too because you accepted the opening of the door to such behaviours, your only solution will be silence. As for examples of that happening, NixOS comes to mind, the Rust debacle too. Also another issue you might not see, you are ironically also enforcing a dominant idea (your american culture) onto the rest of the world thus creating a hierarchy where your ideas are right and the other cultural operating systems are wrong.
  - majorchord 1y ago
    > the issue is that you have opened the door to politics inside what ought to be a technical area Unless you're willing and able to enforce a BDFL stance, I don't think there is actually any alternative. As soon as people start disagreeing with any choices you make, and it's not well-understood that "what I say goes", you're going to have people who want to try to change how you run things, and that is the definition of politics. Either you force your own politics on people, or you open yourself up to accepting changes from other people... which is still politics.
daft_pink 1y ago
Just fire people who suck. It’s really not that difficult.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
duxup 1y ago
I wonder what folks think when they're flagging stories like this.
rurban 1y ago
They are even harmful. Very harmful
tharne 1y ago
I really like heavy codes of conduct. They're the Open Source project equivalent of those brightly colored frogs in the tropics. They're kind enough to signal their own toxicity so others know to keep their distance.
arresin 1y ago
My theory is that this is designed to kill open source.
- The_President 1y ago
  I’ve been wondering why there seems to be bugs in “everything” these days, and I am seeing this has some to do with the coddling of non-talented programmers in the wake of this activisim.
commandersaki 1y ago
If you want to see weaponising code of conduct, just look at what happened to Tim Peters in the Python discussion forums from a few months ago.
kazinator 1y ago
The reason this conversation is possible out in the open is that CoCs are woke, and there has been a backlash against woke: woke is out.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ryan_lane 1y ago
To the folks that say they won't contribute if there's a CoC: this just proves they're working. If you can't avoid the behavior called out in a CoC, then we don't want you to contribute. Thank you for self-selecting yourself away from us. I dealt with abusive contributors at Wikimedia Foundation for years, and it wasn't until a CoC was added that coordinators were actually empowered to ban those abusive volunteers. Can you guess which members of the community were also the most vehemently against the CoCs?
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  False equivalence IMO... you're implying that people who don't want a CoC will actually behave badly, and I don't think that's accurate at all, at least not for the majority. > it wasn't until a CoC was added that coordinators were actually empowered to ban those abusive volunteers IMO that is just bad leadership... they could (and should) have taken action against abusive people regardless.
  - ryan_lane 1y ago
    > you're implying that people who don't want a CoC will actually behave badly, and I don't think that's accurate at all, at least not for the majority If you fight against a code of conduct, which has a more listed out version of "don't harass people", then you're already acting badly. It's at minimum a red flag. There's very little that should be controversial in a CoC. > IMO that is just bad leadership... they could (and should) have taken action against abusive people regardless. It's hard to justify kicking someone out of a community without being able to point to a rule they've broken, which is the entire point of the CoC. None of us want to have to make these things, or enforce them. We just want to work on projects together. These things exist because shitty people cause problems, and then when we try to eject them, they act like victims. When we set rules up front, then enforce them, it takes part of the problem out of the equation. It doesn't fully solve the "playing the victim" part, because folks then start claiming they're being selectively targeted, and start pointing out super minor violations often using out of context quotes, but it's impossible to solve for everything.
7bit 1y ago
Arch Linux has a code of conduct. And no one that enforces it. Really too sad, as some of their most active members regularly violate it.
nim_chimpsky 1y ago
I won't go as far as to say "Rise of Ubuntu" a private corporation with a Advertising and PR budget. Is 70,000 packages and indication of the fall of Debian ? A self-governing body (Debian) with a CoC (no matter how imperfect) is worse than a Benevolent (Sic!) Dictator, Really ? I am beginning to wonder if this blog post is not too different from the raging far right agenda of dismantling all "regulation". "Open Source" has had some nefarious far right loud mouths at least in the past. It would be no surprise if this is another.
realaaa 1y ago
ah thanks ! I was looking for this tweet of Eric and couldn't find it https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1971768345188844003 https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1971768345188844003 great topic overall and some more balanced ideas in it + comments here, cheers everyone

146 points by jonymo 1y ago

> DHH condemned detailed and strict CoC like the Contributor Covenant as a “trojan horse” that should be purged from projects. ESR went even further, asserting that CoC are nothing more than a “tool for troublemakers” and that the best course of action is to delete them entirely from projects. At this point, in 2025, does anybody seriously doubt that they're a "tool for troublemakers"? A lot of people who would otherwise contribute see a hyper-particular CoC, written by an HR type or an aspiring lawyer, and walk away. Others don't bother to read the CoC and may later be dragged through coals over something exceedingly minor, despite their contributions. In open-source, the best policy is to avoid CoCs and avoid those who write and promote them.

warp 1y ago
If having a CoC keeps folks like DHH and ESR out of a particular project, then I think the CoC is serving a valuable purpose.
swiftcoder 1y ago
So the guy who regularly writes about how brown people are invading his country, and the guy who thinks women in tech are all trying to entrap him with rape accusations... don't think CoCs are a good idea? Colour me surprised
- throwaway2046 1y ago
  You can address the contents of the article and the views expressed by the author directly without resorting to ad hominem.
  - swiftcoder 1y ago
    I don't see how that is ad hominem - those are the expressed views of DHH and ESR, as they have repeatedly placed in writing, of their own free will. They are also explicitly the type of views that CoCs are designed to protect contributors from, hence why DHH and ESR would be opposed to CoCs in general.
  - KingMob 1y ago
    Life is not a high-school debate club. An _ad hominem_ accusation only really works if the attack is unrelated. I don't know about ESR, but DHH has acted in ways that make it difficult to believe he is making a good-faith, unbiased argument on CoCs, which means I'm not obligated to reciprocate and treat his argument fairly. (DHH oversaw a list at 37Signals making racist fun of customer names, and overruled his employees who complained, eventually leading to a mass walkout.) To put it in Bayesian terms, the prior that he's making a bad faith argument is higher than any random person, and should be treated as such.
florkbork 1y ago
Let's restate your points a bit, but using the words "ethics" rather than CoC. Is publishing an ethical standpoint a "trouble making"? Depends, doesn't it? What if you examine the most common top ethical viewpoints you are aware of. For me, it's loud groups like say, PETA, Extinction Rebellion, etc who are fairly populist. Are they making trouble? Sure. But for whom? Would you personally do what these people are doing? Probably no. Would you personally do what the people they are "making trouble" for are doing? (In my example, Animal harm, empowering climate change?) I am going to suggest that you would probably say "no, I don't want to harm things/people/etc; as I would probably feel bad for doing it and being personally responsible". If thought through like this - even if your examples of ethics are not what I chose - can you see the value in a strong, clear ethical position, even if it's to warn people? Can you see that it might challenge authority (trouble making), but that is not a bad thing a lot of the time?
- A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
  > Let's restate your points a bit, but using the words "ethics" rather than CoC. Is publishing an ethical standpoint a "trouble making"? Most software projects are ethically neutral and don't need a "standpoint." In tech, those "ethical standpoints" are often tacked-on by people who want to use them as a tool to exercise social control over other contributors, including project founders and visionaries. (There tends to be, in any given Western organization over n people in size, a clique that's really into this.) I have no idea how CoCs are used in PETA, but obviously groups that have ethics as their core focus -- which includes religions and social welfare groups -- have long lists of proscriptions, policies, etc. I don't think that any of it necessarily applies to open-source software, though. It's apples to oranges. > If thought through like this - even if your examples of ethics are not what I chose - can you see the value in a strong, clear ethical position, even if it's to warn people? Well, that's precisely my point: The CoC itself is the warning. It's usually bad news in itself -- an exposed surface that's weaponizable against contributors who give to the project in good faith.
- yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
  I think you should understand quite how bad your examples are. I understand the examples you gave are given in the best of intentions, but this reads as pure blissful ignorance. PETA literally funded a terrorist convicted of arson. > A page from the 1995 annual tax return (form 990) of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), showing a $45,200 payment for the ``support committee'' of Rodney Coronado, a felon. Mr. Coronado was convicted of arson in federal court for the 1992 firebombing of a Michigan State University research lab. --- > Would you personally do what the people they are "making trouble" for are doing? Would I eat meat? Yes. Would I keep animals as pets? Yes. Do I think it's ethical for humans to use animals for service, e.g., guide dogs for the blind? Yes. Do I think it's ethical to use animal models in medical research? Yes. All of these things, PETA are against. Further: - https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/animal-rights-extremism-and-ecoterrorism https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/animal-righ... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Coronado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Coronado - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg77615/html/CHRG-107hhrg77615.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg77615/html/C...
HelloNurse 1y ago
Personally, I assume one or more problematic activists behind any prominent project CoC. Some might be well-intentioned but unreasonable and hard to discuss with, some might be dangerously fanatic and a constant threat, some might be power-hungry manipulators giving themselves leverage, all are a liability for the project. Normal people shouldn't need anything more than normal morality and acceptable manners to be good project contributors.

burnt-resistor 1y ago

CoCs are like having faith in some prerequisite magical spell is first necessary to control and compel people to behave in a proscribed manner when, in reality, they are more like EULAs and Cider House Rules that (almost) no one reads. Paperwork cannot transform people. Perhaps their limited marginal value is existing to show that community is defended and there is a clear and thoughtful process to arbitrate and resolve conflict rather than falling into either extremes of absentee inaction or heavy-handed, summary, expedient, arbitrary expulsion.

WesolyKubeczek 1y ago
> Perhaps their limited marginal value is existing to show there is a clear and thoughtful process to arbitrate and resolve conflict and I have a slightly used bridge to sell.

codeduck 1y ago

CoC are like club rules. Useless - except for when you want to make an example of someone.

lelanthran 1y ago
> CoC are like club rules. Useless - except for when you want to make an example of someone. That, and also for selective enforcement.

serial_dev 1y ago

The thing is that codes of conduct do not help honest actors “regulate” and deal with troublemakers. I used to organize meetups and I visited meetups organized by others who had code of conduct, and I just never understood what they were hoping to achieve with that. If someone behaves poorly, you can point at a document all you want, but it doesn’t help you deal that the problematic individual. A document that you put in a markdown file is not enforceable. And we didn’t even talk about how it is being misused. People would point to these documents to silence and shut out people they don’t like and at the same time tolerate poor behavior that are clearly in violation of code of conduct by people they do like or whose politics or opinions they share. It is all just a charade to help you pretend that you are impartial.

curtisblaine 1y ago
[flagged]
- chrislo 1y ago
  What evidence do you have for that? I was involved in adopting a code of conduct for a local tech meetup and we did that because a couple of incidents that weren't handled very well left other people feeling unsafe and unwelcome. Having some guidelines in place reassured folks that we took those concerns seriously and gave us a framework to deal with unwanted behaviour.
  - arpinum 1y ago
    Anti-meritocracy was in in some CoCs, arguing in its favour was a reason for exclusion from an event / project. Even if the argument happened somewhere else on the internet and not in the project.
    - vkou 1y ago
      Whenever I see someone dying on the hill of fighting for 'meritocracy', in the words of another poster in this subthread, I have found them to be: > ...a zealot about their cause. Deflecting and uncompromising, very unagreeable. They would be the last persons to know how to make a community comfy. ... And typically with a giant chip on their shoulder. The real world's a little bit more complicated than the spherical cows that the near-religious faith in it requires.

curtisblaine 1y ago

CoCs are one of the reasons why I choose to not contribute. I don't enjoy the risk of someone with an axe to grind to drag me into some absurd GitHub comments drama and feel justified by some generic wording on the CoC.

Mashimo 1y ago
But could they not do the same without a CoC?
- cybrox 1y ago
  Yes, that's the point of why CoCs are essentially useless. Humans should be able to interact politely in any setting and if they don't, the issue needs to be settled with good old human interaction anyways.
  - rpdillon 1y ago
    This is how I feel. I treat the presence of a code of conduct as a sign that, particularly for small projects, the folks running the project don't have experience leading others. Always comes down to the relationship, the individuals involved, and the way things are communicated.
- ricardobeat 1y ago
  They could, but then it’s their word vs yours, not you vs sacred Code-of-Conduct.
- lelanthran 1y ago
  > But could they not do the same without a CoC? Sure, but someone who went to the trouble to get their view enforced in writing is probably already a zealot I don't want to deal with. Depends a lot on the group size, too - a few hundred contributors probably needs some rules written down. A few dozen? Not so much.
silisili 1y ago
Same, but for slightly different reasons. I was a big open source contributor of a few well known projects, but the CoC stuff just kinda soured me on it all. Not because I enjoy reading or writing hate speech or anything, but these were places that didn't tend to have any obvious problems with troublemakers, so it felt self congratulatory. And don't even get me started on the sheer amount of bikeshedding the discussions around it became, mostly from people who'd never even contributed to the project. It suddenly made me realize there were probably more productive and less frustrating ways to spend my time.

trwcock 1y ago

Is programming lame enough yet that we can get away from everything being done by hr and get back to doing cool things with weird people?

k33n 1y ago
Hopefully! And it takes every kind of weird to make it fun. You don't have to like or hang with everyone in a community. But sometimes the people you don't understand personally wind up being the ones you will respect the most from a skill/talent perspective. A strong foundation of mutual respect built up over time is how you create real tolerance and even change minds.
thrance 1y ago
Define "weird people".
- account42 1y ago
  Nerds.
swiftcoder 1y ago
It really depends whether "weird people" means people with unusual hobbies/sexualities/clothes/hair/etc, or "weird people" means the ones who want to keep all the first category of people out...
- pessimizer 1y ago
  Not for people with boundaries. I've done work I was absolutely delighted with in both process and product with people whose views I detest. If you can't grow up enough to do that, you can't have a civilization. If I have to like you in order for us not to fight, I warn you that we're going to have to fight.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
    What was the most detestable view?

squigz 1y ago

It seems some people need to re-read the title and article and consider the words "heavy", "bureaucratic" and the like No, CoCs - or rules in general - are not inherently bad. HN has some, which the moderators and the community enforce well, and it's generally one of the best platforms on the Internet for intelligent discussion. Yes, heavy CoCs can be weaponized and abused, if there is little or no trust between the community and its leaders. But with or without a CoC, such a community will always be prone to such abuse. You think moderators need to establish a CoC to push their politics on people if they want? How does that even make sense? Why not just... do that, without a CoC?

yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
> You think moderators need to establish a CoC to push their politics on people if they want? How does that even make sense? Why not just... do that, without a CoC? I don't think this is what generally happens, or what people are wary of. I think group participants [sometimes] coerce moderators into establishing a CoC in order to have a tool to reach for in service of silencing voices they regard as "problematic".
- squigz 1y ago
  > silencing voices they regard as "problematic". I'm going to push past this extraordinarily bad faith framing. I'm going to assume you're referring to people who are made to feel uncomfortable or are harassed by other members of the community. So if that community doesn't have a CoC, and those members talk to the moderators, and the moderators take action... is that coercion too? Is that the moderators or those members pushing their political views on the community? Should the moderators just not do anything?
  - yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
    > I'm going to assume you're referring to people who are made to feel uncomfortable or are harassed by other members of the community. It has been my experience that there are both members of groups typically regarded as marginalised who have been harrassed, and also members of groups typically regarded as marginalised who harass others. There are surely more variations of this too. My most recent experience of this was a member of a group typically regarded as marginalised harassing one of my colleagues — who is also a member of a group typically regarded as marginalised, but perhaps less so if you subscribe to the legitimacy of intersectionality — at a software development conference with an established CoC. The incident was reported, and the repercussions for the harasser amounted to exactly nil. > So if that community doesn't have a CoC, and those members talk to the moderators, and the moderators take action... is that coercion too? No. > Is that the moderators or those members pushing their political views on the community? That really depends on the circumstance. > Should the moderators just not do anything? Moderators should take action on CoC violations as proportionately, fairly, and impartially as they can. > I'm going to push past this extraordinarily bad faith framing. It is extraordinarily tiring and depressing that anything proffered that contradicts the orthodoxy of the culture that most readily endorses the establishment of CoCs is immediately dismissed as an argument in "bad faith".

w4rh4wk5 1y ago

Maybe a bit of an unpopular opinion here, but I still think the benevolent dictator is the way to go for open-source projects. If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better. However, there's probably a cutoff point for core infrastructure where we should move away from having a single person in charge.

lelanthran 1y ago
> Maybe a bit of an unpopular opinion here, but I still think the benevolent dictator is the way to go for open-source projects. If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better. If I start a project that attracts contributors[1], I don't see anything wrong with rejecting someone's CoC "contribution" with "I am the code of conduct. We don't need another one." ================== [1] I try not to do that, btw.
- tomkarho 1y ago
  "I am the law!" :D
ranger_danger 1y ago
> If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better. Yes, but often the projects where this happens are just big enough to where one person cannot realistically maintain their own fork to the same level that users will expect if they are looking to jump ship. What I've seen happen more often than not, is even if the person does attempt a fork, they either get constantly attacked by existing users, or stop working on it within a year, or both.

astanm 1y ago

This, from the Ruby CoC, is key: > Participants are expected to be tolerant of opposing views. If you can't tolerate that others will have different perspectives to you then it means you're likely to be a very difficult and inflexible person to work with.

pjc50 1y ago
This is one of those things that falls apart on the actual content. If you have a trans contributor and someone who comes in with trans-eliminationist rhetoric, you can't then turn round and say the trans person is being "inflexible" for refusing to work with them.
- ishouldbework 1y ago
  [dead]
- HelloNurse 1y ago
  The correct answer is reacting harshly to "trans-eliminationist rhetoric" from a weird extremist, with an ultimatum or immediate expulsion, before the trans contributor complains.
  - astanm 1y ago
    If someone is posting along the lines of "send them all to the death camps" etc. on the mailing lists or discussion boards, for any group, that would be covered under the other items in the Ruby CoC, where participants are expected not to harass or disparage. Also it would be very off-topic for a programming language forum.
- astanm 1y ago
  That would be covered under the next part of the Ruby CoC: > Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free from personal attacks and disparaging remarks. And anyway, rhetoric which advocates for killing groups of people would be very off-topic for a programming language discussion forum. Unlikely it would come up in conversation except for deliberate trolling.

satisfice 1y ago

I want a code of conduct that explicitly allows debate, disagreement, and normalizes hurting other people’s feelings with your words. What matters is that people are operating in good faith. I would also say that IF you have been accepted as a member of a community then you and your feelings must matter to that community unless and until you are ejected from the community. There needs to be a system for accepting and expelling people, and that system should rest on the judgment of people that the community has selected as trustworthy (until and unless those people are expelled).

vkou 1y ago
> What matters is that people are operating in good faith. Any asshole can claim to be acting in good faith, regardless of what they've done.
- majorchord 1y ago
  You're getting downvoted but I think this is absolutely right... people are simply going to disagree with each others' definition of "good faith."
  - HankStallone 1y ago
    Right. Adam tells Ben to go die in a fire, and Ben says, "Come on, moderators, that's obviously a violation of the CoC." Then Adam says, "No, because I was only responding to Ben's offensive and unwelcoming language when he referred to a 'master' repository. I've compiled a list of Ben's violations, and I demand a review according to section 3, subsection D of the code...." A good moderator will shut that nonsense down immediately, but a good moderator wouldn't need a CoC to do it. All the CoC does is give the troublemaker a tool to start playing rules lawyer, in the hope that the moderator will get tired of it and give in. Some people think the answer is to have a CoC that's too simple for rules lawyering, like a one line "Be excellent to each other." But even that can be twisted, so it would be better as a project motto than as an official CoC.
    - 1y ago

3form 1y ago

I'm not very involved in the topic, so my POV might be very wrong - but most effective enforcement, from my overall life experience, is having someone act as a "bad guy" and sharply deal consequences to the people that behave like assholes. I feel that having a detailed COC, while a very good sentiment in theory, in practice must bring about people who will try their best to skirt around the edge of COC and make trouble for the maintainers - who I expect want to stay "nice", but they're forced to act harshly in the end anyway.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago

CoC always appeared to me as a US issue which could pretty much be safely ignored by anyone living in the rest of the world. I generally dislike how they tend to be written as objective rules while actually being imperialist but most of them can safely be boiled down to act like a normal professional person. The implied subtext of "avoid topic the US finds morally objectionable and when in doubt act like an American would" is what I dislike from a theorical point of view but the truth is, it doesn't really matter on a day to day basis. So yes, CoC seems mostly harmless but also mostly useless. I tend to agree with the article point that if this is the case, keeping them short seems optimal.

ranger_danger 1y ago
The problem I have seen with them is that they get weaponized. Someone can point to a specific rule in the CoC that has very subjective language in it, and claim that you are violating the rules, when really they're just doing that to silence opinions they don't like. This is further proven when any attempts to discuss said rule/policy are immediately shut down with even more staunch black-and-white opinions and zero empathy... even if you wait until later to discuss it in a different setting.
squigz 1y ago
> could pretty much be safely ignored by anyone living in the rest of the world. While it would be nice if all the ignorant assholes in the world lived in America... this is not the case :)
- poncho_romero 1y ago
  No, but Americans are more litigious than everyone else
lenkite 1y ago
The bigger the CoC, the more toxic the project - this is bog-standard law.

IlikeKitties 1y ago

The only code of conduct that was ever required was the license.md file.

buyucu 1y ago

Codes of Conduct are pushed by corporate types you want open source projects to act and behave more corporate fashion. I've never seen them make things better.

squigz 1y ago

A relevant blog post posted recently among the Nix drama https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/ https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/

lowsong 1y ago

A big part of a CoC that this article, as most discussions on the topic, miss is that they provide a signal to new contributors from marginalized groups, who may have faced abuse or violence in other spaces, that this community will be safe for them to contribute to and - as many anti-CoC folk like to say - get on with the tech. Not having a CoC doesn't mean a project is going to be unsafe to work in. But it means when another community member refuses to work with you, or belittles your work constantly, there is nothing to be done. For many, why take the risk. This means that projects are starving themselves of contributors because they don't create an environment that is safe. Ruby's "CoC" is actually a fantastic example of why you need to spell it out too. "Participants are expected to be tolerant of opposing views." is often weaponized by abusers who like to paint basic requests like "please use my chosen name" as "not being tolerant".

Ragnarork 1y ago
Well a big reason this is missed is people discussing it are not part of these groups and mainly saw this as an annoyance. I can agree that heavy & strict CoCs can be daunting and probably overkill for small open source projects. And they're far from flawless, as shown by the Rust mods resignation incidents. But to say they're useless and anti-meritocratic is to forget (and/or silence) these people that wanted to contribute in an environment where they wouldn't feel threatened (incidentally, sometimes despite being skillful contributors, so much so for the supposed meritocracy of the CoC-less projects). I'm not sure strict CoCs are the answers to these real problems, but this feels like dismissing these problems altogether.
mytailorisrich 1y ago
> to new contributors from marginalized groups, For software projects that are overwhelmingly conducted online the very concept of "marginalized group" is close to irrelevant and meaningless [1]. I think what happens is that some people want to be very, very vocal about whatever "group" they belong to and want to feel offended and oppressed. In recent years, arguments and campaigns against specific technical terms ('master', 'blacklist', even 'legacy code' spring to mind) are examples of this, IMHO. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...

noelwelsh 1y ago

Good article. This sentence from the conclusion nails it: > What is needed now is not the unthinking adoption of a one-size-fits-all template, but a “right-sized” approach tailored to the scale, culture, and goals of each individual project. I feel a lot of the heavy CoCs are a product of low-trust cultures, particularly the US, which attempt to replace interpersonal relationships with legalese. This is honestly not necessary in most projects, which are generally high-trust environments.

PlunderBunny 1y ago

I feel like this is similar to civil and criminal laws: When codes of conduct are very detailed, lawyers will argue fine points on the wording. When they are simple and general, people can't be 'rules lawyers', but you need to have authority to enforce decisions, and respect for that authority.

florkbork 1y ago

Yeah, nah. Watch how an open discussion here: https://github.com/nixos/rfcs/pull/98 https://github.com/nixos/rfcs/pull/98 ... devolves into a massive outcry because a bunch of folks not behaving in good faith didn't like "we don't support fascism or bigotry". It reached the level of * Vile sock puppet attacks on a trans individual, who merely kept saying "Fascism, no thanks in this community" * "Denounce the Marxists!" As a rallying cry becomes a talking point If you reflect on the behaviours seen there and ask why is this so heated for proposing consequences for bad behaviour; you may come to the realisation that the advocates of bad behaviour... don't want to be accountable. This post is translated, perhaps some of the nuance is lost. But it hand waves away dhh's behaviour as "controversial figures in the community" If that's genuinely what is believed, I'd like a replacement on this Overton window, thanks! It has been fractured. The article does not consider the consequences or implications of malicious acts, and the harm on others adequately. A clear CoC or similar outlines expected norms, and does not have to be copypasta/is infact better if it is derived from a consensus. It's a statement of what the people with power will hold themselves to, and if that turns out to be a lie - a performative document that is not actually used - newcomers can view the behaviour they observe against that standard; and leave or demand justice if they are wronged. By not publishing an ethical or moral standard you abide by, even if it's a text file with "get bent" in it; you invite people to interact with you with expectations. If you are part of the 1-4% of the population who are sociopaths, you are advocating to hurt people without consequence. If they are part of the 1-4% you are permitting behaviour without recourse. Could you imagine a post advocating for "don't fix security holes because 92-98% of people don't know about exploiting them?" Would that be acceptable? Why would you not state a policy?

yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
> If you reflect on the behaviours seen there and ask why is this so heated for proposing consequences for bad behaviour; you may come to the realisation that the advocates of bad behaviour... don't want to be accountable. It seems the problem is that what amounts to "bad behaviour" is poorly defined, and that the detractors of "bad behaviour" can also be guilty of bad behaviour.
kelnos 1y ago

TylerLives 1y ago

Posts like this always remind me of Vaclav Havel's "The Power of the Powerless". You are completely misunderstanding the original purpose behind the CoC. Here's the relevant part: "The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say. Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests? Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology."

thrance 1y ago

> DHH condemned detailed and strict CoC like the Contributor Covenant as a “trojan horse” that should be purged from projects. Of course he would, he has made several transphobic remarks in the past. Normal people shouldn't take issue with the mere existence of a markdown document that basically says "don't be a dick to people because of who they are". Ostracizing people from projects because you are prejudiced against them, now that hinders open-source. How many potential contributors were scared away by such remarks?

u_sama 1y ago
I think the issue with CoC is that they have been used in the past by politically motivated (notably on the left) activists to take control of a project and ensure a political line. You may agree with such a political line like anti-fascism, inclusion and what not. But the issue is that you have opened the door to politics inside what ought to be a technical area, and historically, politics change, the ideas you agree on today will be pushed to more extremes (some you might disagree with) you will not be comfortable with and eventually you will be alienated from them completely. But when that happens, you will have no recourse and will eventually be purged (like those before you, being called the trendy workd of the moment, fascist or woke) too because you accepted the opening of the door to such behaviours, your only solution will be silence. As for examples of that happening, NixOS comes to mind, the Rust debacle too. Also another issue you might not see, you are ironically also enforcing a dominant idea (your american culture) onto the rest of the world thus creating a hierarchy where your ideas are right and the other cultural operating systems are wrong.
- majorchord 1y ago
  > the issue is that you have opened the door to politics inside what ought to be a technical area Unless you're willing and able to enforce a BDFL stance, I don't think there is actually any alternative. As soon as people start disagreeing with any choices you make, and it's not well-understood that "what I say goes", you're going to have people who want to try to change how you run things, and that is the definition of politics. Either you force your own politics on people, or you open yourself up to accepting changes from other people... which is still politics.

daft_pink 1y ago

Just fire people who suck. It’s really not that difficult.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

duxup 1y ago

I wonder what folks think when they're flagging stories like this.

rurban 1y ago

They are even harmful. Very harmful

tharne 1y ago

I really like heavy codes of conduct. They're the Open Source project equivalent of those brightly colored frogs in the tropics. They're kind enough to signal their own toxicity so others know to keep their distance.

arresin 1y ago

My theory is that this is designed to kill open source.

The_President 1y ago
I’ve been wondering why there seems to be bugs in “everything” these days, and I am seeing this has some to do with the coddling of non-talented programmers in the wake of this activisim.

commandersaki 1y ago

If you want to see weaponising code of conduct, just look at what happened to Tim Peters in the Python discussion forums from a few months ago.

kazinator 1y ago

The reason this conversation is possible out in the open is that CoCs are woke, and there has been a backlash against woke: woke is out.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

ryan_lane 1y ago

To the folks that say they won't contribute if there's a CoC: this just proves they're working. If you can't avoid the behavior called out in a CoC, then we don't want you to contribute. Thank you for self-selecting yourself away from us. I dealt with abusive contributors at Wikimedia Foundation for years, and it wasn't until a CoC was added that coordinators were actually empowered to ban those abusive volunteers. Can you guess which members of the community were also the most vehemently against the CoCs?

ranger_danger 1y ago
False equivalence IMO... you're implying that people who don't want a CoC will actually behave badly, and I don't think that's accurate at all, at least not for the majority. > it wasn't until a CoC was added that coordinators were actually empowered to ban those abusive volunteers IMO that is just bad leadership... they could (and should) have taken action against abusive people regardless.
- ryan_lane 1y ago
  > you're implying that people who don't want a CoC will actually behave badly, and I don't think that's accurate at all, at least not for the majority If you fight against a code of conduct, which has a more listed out version of "don't harass people", then you're already acting badly. It's at minimum a red flag. There's very little that should be controversial in a CoC. > IMO that is just bad leadership... they could (and should) have taken action against abusive people regardless. It's hard to justify kicking someone out of a community without being able to point to a rule they've broken, which is the entire point of the CoC. None of us want to have to make these things, or enforce them. We just want to work on projects together. These things exist because shitty people cause problems, and then when we try to eject them, they act like victims. When we set rules up front, then enforce them, it takes part of the problem out of the equation. It doesn't fully solve the "playing the victim" part, because folks then start claiming they're being selectively targeted, and start pointing out super minor violations often using out of context quotes, but it's impossible to solve for everything.

7bit 1y ago

Arch Linux has a code of conduct. And no one that enforces it. Really too sad, as some of their most active members regularly violate it.

nim_chimpsky 1y ago

I won't go as far as to say "Rise of Ubuntu" a private corporation with a Advertising and PR budget. Is 70,000 packages and indication of the fall of Debian ? A self-governing body (Debian) with a CoC (no matter how imperfect) is worse than a Benevolent (Sic!) Dictator, Really ? I am beginning to wonder if this blog post is not too different from the raging far right agenda of dismantling all "regulation". "Open Source" has had some nefarious far right loud mouths at least in the past. It would be no surprise if this is another.

realaaa 1y ago

ah thanks ! I was looking for this tweet of Eric and couldn't find it https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1971768345188844003 https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1971768345188844003 great topic overall and some more balanced ideas in it + comments here, cheers everyone