Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by thrance » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 7:57 PM UTC

u_sama wrote: post #76

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 agre…

I am not American, and I don't think that "trans people have a right to participate in society" is a political take. The real issue is with people thinking that "trans people shouldn't exist" is a valid opinion to hold, and I don't feel particularly bad for them being "silenced".

If this view falls in the American left's umbrella, then I'm sorry to say: they're objectively right and fuck the guys who hold anti-human views.

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

#132

Post by majorchord » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 8:15 PM UTC

lowsong wrote: post #129

majorchord wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everyone assumes they are also a white cis hetero guy even if they're not Hard disagree. And how is this even relevant? > The implication is "you have to conform, and if you don't then you don't belong". Conform to what, being nice? That was already the case. A group is very unlikely to change their ways regardless, especially just because you barge in and say you are marginalized and start getting offended at thin…

I think that you've made my point really quite well. I gave perhaps the most basic possible example of accommodation, adjusting a single word with no impact on other project members and you were still able to argue about it. > Maybe you believe it is necessary to identify yourself online as belonging to some group, perhaps in order to force a change, but again I think this is just trying to play politics where it's o…

I think "playing politics" means trying to get people to change something, or how a group of people is managed. Not all projects want other people telling them what to do or what they should or shouldn't do, and I think that's perfectly ok.

If "people being themselves" means making SJW politics their entire identity and spraying it across the internet, then I'd say it's likely they're not going to be welcome in many places, CoC or not.

I think you could argue having any rule that someone happens to disagree with is telling them "you cannot be different"... people have to draw the line somewhere, or there wouldn't be rules. Who are we to say what's right or wrong in someone else's project?

And I think your argument still dismisses the weaponization that many people are seeing... maybe you call it their identity being someone who wants to change things... but that doesn't mean they should always get what they want.

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

#133

Post by atoav » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 8:33 PM UTC

serial_dev wrote: post #5

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 pu…

I play in a band. Since we're just 4 people a code of conduct would be ridiculous. What isn't ridiculous however is that a group of people who do some shit together need to be somewhat on the same page what is acceptable and what isn't. You don't need that with just friends, but any project beyond friends needs people to agree on what kind of social space this is meant to be. If you don't talk it out the shittiest person is going to define it for you.

And beyond a certain size formalizing that makes sense. Not as a tool for punishment or to point to, but so everybody can be on the same page and you know if someone acts out of line they do so despite better knowledge.

If a code of conducts contains stuff you are within the bounds of anyways, why would you care it is there?

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

#134

Post by pessimizer » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 8:41 PM UTC

swiftcoder wrote: post #53

trwcock wrote: post #7

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?

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...

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.

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

#135

Post by yakshaving_jgt » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 8:41 PM UTC

ranger_danger wrote: post #122

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fel…

Can you provide sources for these claims? > animals as pets This seems to say they are perfectly fine with pets: https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/ > guide dogs Seems to imply they are not against service animals in general: https://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/monkeys-arent-pets-... Not trying to defend anyone, just looking for objective evidence.

> Not trying to defend anyone, just looking for objective evidence.

Fair.

## guide dogs

> [PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk] regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, … is wholly opposed to their use. She has had at least one dog taken from its owner.

- https://archive.is/6IIo1

## medical testing

> Medical research is immoral even it it's essential

> Even If Animal Research Resulted In A Cure For AIDS, We’d Be Against It

- https://consumerfreedom.com/press-releases/153-even-if-anima...

## animals as pets

- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk

- https://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/quotes-from-the-...

## Bonus fun story

- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-f...

---

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. The utter insanity of PETA is actually very well documented, so if you have an evening, grab a bottle of wine and go down that ~rabbit~ hole.

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

#136

Post by danaris » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 8:53 PM UTC

ranger_danger wrote: post #119

danaris wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never seen one have this effect. How do you think you would see it? Under normal circumstances, what it would look like from the outside is just...someone not causing friction, because there is a code of conduct. Or someone causing friction, because there isn't one. The former looks identical to someone who would never have caused trouble in the first place, and the latter looks, if not identical, at least ver…

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. Another commenter (cannot find their name now but I saved the text) said exactly what my experience has been: > A written code of conduct can legitimize petty disputes based on interpretations of the text, even if the issue itself is something…

> 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.

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

#137

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 9:08 PM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #130

throwaway9917 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience with a CoC at a meetup was that one day a bunch of people piled on the mailing list for the meetup demanding that the meetup adopt a CoC. The majority of these people were people that either only infrequently showed up, or hadn't ever shown up to the meetup. The CoC they demanded had a bunch of social justice language. When questioned on the mailing list as to the events that had precipitated the demand…

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#138

Post by wastle » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 9:36 PM UTC

thrance wrote: post #131

u_sama wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agre…

I am not American, and I don't think that "trans people have a right to participate in society" is a political take. The real issue is with people thinking that "trans people shouldn't exist" is a valid opinion to hold, and I don't feel particularly bad for them being "silenced". If this view falls in the American left's umbrella, then I'm sorry to say: they're objectively right and fuck the guys who hold anti-human…

The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex.

This gets relabelled by activists for the trans ideological cause with phrases like "the right to participate in society" and even "the right to exist", but these are so far from what is actually being demanded that it's essentially just misinformation and false appeal to emotion.

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

#139

Post by skissane » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

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.

Likely more than 50% of the world's population agrees with viewpoints that some would label "trans-eliminationist rhetoric". So if you are saying anyone who ever expresses such viewpoints–even in forums completely unrelated to the project–is barred from contributing to it, you are potentially excluding more than half of contemporary humanity.

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

#140

Post by kelnos » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 9:53 PM UTC

lowsong wrote: post #28

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 wh…

> But it means when another community member refuses to work with you, or belittles your work constantly, there is nothing to be done.

No it doesn't. It just means that there isn't a formal process. The aggrieved party can always contact the project leaders/maintainers, and lodge a complaint.

Sure, the leaders may not do anything with your complaint, but a CoC doesn't guarantee that they will either (even if it does give you a warm fuzzy feeling up-front that they might).

I find it incredibly infantilizing this idea that people can't be good to each other, or people can't feel safe, without some sort of document that lays out behavior expectations. It's so so simple: don't be a dick to people. If someone is being a dick to you, find someone with authority and send them the evidence. If they handle it to your satisfaction, great. If not, stay away from that project, because it's run by people who at worst don't care about you, or at best are inept at handling this sort of thing (and in either case, a CoC is not going to make it better).

For leaders/maintainers, grow a spine. If someone is behaving badly (regardless of whether or not someone complains), talk to them and give them a chance to improve. If their behavior gets better, great. If not, eject them from the community. If they or others aren't happy with your reaction, that's their problem, not yours.