3 ms·
> The way I see it, the people who would cause friction anyway won't be stopped by a CoC. > And the people who wouldn't cause friction are already behaving so
by danaris 1y ago
> The way I see it, the people who would cause friction anyway won't be stopped by a CoC.
> And the people who wouldn't cause friction are already behaving so they don't need one.
Both correct. By definition, in fact.
CoCs are for the people in the middle of those. Who do, in fact, exist.
- ranger_danger 1y agoI think if someone needs to be told to be nice... it's time to grow up. Open source projects are not your mother and we shouldn't have to treat people like children, nor get chastised for having that (IMO very reasonable) stance.
- danaris 1y agoIt's not about being "told to be nice". It's about setting a shared understanding of norms. It's about whether the kinds of jokes allowed among members are "as raunchy as you please", "polite jokes only," or "none". It's about whether you're expected to work out differences in private chats, address them in public, or bring them to a moderator. It's about whether your comments on a code review started by another member have to be addressed by the committer before the review can go forward. Any time you think the way you do things in the open source project (or any other kind of community) you contribute to or run is The Natural, Obvious Way Everyone Does Things, you're probably wrong, and some other people or projects do things exactly the opposite way and think that's just as natural and obvious.