4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.