Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

shujisado.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 270 posts

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#71

Post by lelanthran »

w4rh4wk5 wrote: post #15

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.

> 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.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#72

Post by lelanthran »

Mashimo wrote: post #10
curtisblaine wrote: post #6

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.

But could they not do the same without a CoC?

> 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.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#73

Post by relaxing »

TylerLives wrote: post #48

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 t…

Havel was writing about life under Soviet occupation. The open source project CoC does not come from a party official who demands you post it in your shop window (public repo.)

It comes from people who believe shitty behavior hurts projects and needs to stop.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#74

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

florkbork wrote: post #66
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #2

> 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 other…

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 doin…

> 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.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#75

Post by lelanthran »

codeduck wrote: post #4

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

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

That, and also for selective enforcement.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#76

Post by u_sama »

thrance wrote: post #50

> 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 again…

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.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#77

Post by danaris »

serial_dev wrote: post #36
squigz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having something you can point to and say "This is why you're being removed" often removes some headaches. Some people will claim it's unjustified, moderator abuse, etc, if you don't. At least with some rules, there's less wiggle room. Of course, some people are going to respond poorly even with some rules, but it's also not just about the offenders - other community members being able to see there's some logic and r…

> often removes some headaches (...) with some rules, there's less wiggle room ... I understand that's the theory, but in practice, I've never seen it working that way. I don't see how having the CoC affects any of this. If someone is behaving poorly, first of all, a CoC will not deter them. If someone behaves so poorly that you decide you need to remove them, the community (the small portion of people who give a f)…

> If someone is behaving poorly, first of all, a CoC will not deter them.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true.

You're treating humanity as if it's divided into two distinct sections: Those Who Behave Well, and Those Who Behave Poorly.

In reality, different humans have different ranges of ways they prefer to act, and most are quite amenable to reasonable, clearly-stated codes of conduct for interaction in a particular space.

There is a small subset of people who are either deliberately antisocial for the sake of it (trolls/griefers/etc), and another subset that are genuinely just assholes who will, if given the leeway to do so, cause endless problems in a community.

But there are many, many more who would cause friction with others in such a community without a code of conduct not because they actively want to, but because their unstated assumptions about how people should interact clash with the unstated assumptions of other people there. Having the code of conduct lets everyone coming in in good faith align their expectations and avoid these unnecessary conflicts. They're like a Session 0 in a TTRPG in that sense.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#78

Post by astanm »

pjc50 wrote: post #51
astanm wrote: post #16

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.

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.

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.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#79

Post by ranger_danger »

blueflow wrote: post #25
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Has it occurred to you that's actually exactly why they exist? :)

I mean. Whenever a code of conduct was installed in a project i was passionate about, i could look up the contributor on twitter/fediverse and see that they are a zealot about their cause. Deflecting and uncompromising, very unagreeable. They would be the last persons to know how to make a community comfy.

Not surprised at the downvotes but this also matches my experience exactly.

These people (who push for CoCs so heavily) in my experience tend to hypocritically attack and censor opinions they don’t like, while not understanding why people won’t "accept them for who they are".

They are desperate to be the center of attention and love to play the victim.

It’s like the bullied becomes the bully sort of thing. They spend more time arguing over weaponized CoCs and ideological SJW politics instead of writing code. It doesn’t help that many of them self-admittedly suffer from mental health problems.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#80

Post by astanm »

swiftcoder wrote: post #54
astanm wrote: post #16

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.

Something, something, paradox of tolerance. Diverse views on software development? Great. Diverse views on whether various groups deserve human rights? Not great.

The latter would be off-topic for a programming language discussion forum, certainly. But working with others that happen to hold differing views on that topic? Not a problem.

It would be unreasonable to expect everyone to have the same perspective on political issues.

Post reply on HN