Eric S. Raymond to the Oss Community on Codes of Conduct: Refuse to Have One

Ironically, "every bit of whatever authority I have" dwindles further and further every time he posts something like this.

Eric's suggestion for a CoC:

> "If you are more annoying to work with than your contributions justify, you'll be ejected."

is not unreasonable (whether written down or not) for an individual's hobby project, but for something run by a company or other organization I think more detail is required.

The OSI code of conduct seems too general, perhaps open for different interpretations or potentially selective enforcement: https://opensource.org/codeofconduct

The Linux one I prefer, since it's concise and clear, e.g. "sexualized language" and "harassment" are unacceptable: https://docs.kernel.org/process/code-of-conduct.html

My own employer's code of conduct (we have open source projects, discussion forums etc) looks similar to the Linux one. I think it is enforced about once a year, and I think the reason has been either sexual harassment or repeated personal criticism of individuals' work.

Yikes, I didn't realize Raymond was the kind of guy that posts about "low IQ black people" and sees "Marxists" everywhere.

I don't like CoCs either, but ironically guys like him make me think they might be needed after all...

I’ve enjoyed https://github.com/WiseLibs/better-sqlite3/blob/master/docs/... as a code of conduct.

Simple, well-motivated, well-practiced (I think). Unlike more convoluted CoCs, it’s tightly scoped on work, not fun. Specific labor intended to produce contributions instead of enjoyable social experiences.

I feel a lot more OSS should avoid fun. Fun doesn’t seem to scale, especially when it gets in the way of real work.

CoC should facilitate free speech and thought without the worry of repurcussions. But in reality it is now a tool to say "I don't like you/your thoughts, so here comes the hammer". I have seen some of the flimsiest excuses used to ban someone. But the same reason doesn't warrant ban on the people the admins like.

If you are actually right, then talk about in the open. Show restraint from name calling. Not everybody is out there with a hidden agenda. Lobste.rs is a great example of this. No shadow banning. Everything has a reason and accountability.

Shoutout to people like JT from the BSD Now podcast as well. I am a fan of his moderation on the Telegram channel. Atleast as far as I have witnessed, I have seen some of the controversial topics going on and on but not banned for difference of opinions. A lot of de-escalation and patience. It would've been so easy for him to just do some Hammering. But that's not how it goes most of the time.

We need more spaces like this.

Code of conducts are a waste of time. Trolls won’t read it, well-behaved people don’t need to be told how to behave well. It’s not like there are CoCs out there that grant you specific rights others don’t: there is no CoC that says, for example, it is fine to harass people or be a racist idiot. So they’re all a variation of:

  Rule 1: don’t be a ****

  Rule 2: basically rule 1 but with more words

Then why do you need a code of conduct at this point. Not being a **** to other people is an unspoken rule that applies everywhere in life, online and offline.

CoCs simply exist because there is a large contingent of people that really do love making and enforcing rules.

Code of Conducts are misaligned, in telling people what is allowed and what isn't.

What is practical is a list of obligations the maintainers are willing to do for the community:

Maintainers can only directly control themselves, after all. Only through their actions does anything happen, either merging code, or removing people from accessing the project.

Knowing where the maintainers are going to draw the line is far more useful.

> But we should be ruthless and merciless towards people who try to turn "Be kind!" into a weapon. Indulging them never ends well.

Indeed, this is how cancel culture started (not just in OSS), and look where it got us.

"If you are more annoying to work with than your contributions justify, you'll be ejected." should be all that is required, if it really needs to be said at all.

I think my problem with codes of conduct is that, in my experience, they're usually just accountability sinks[1].

e.g. "all violations must be reported to the committee" => "we will forbid anyone taking action without the committee's prior approval, and insist that disclosing any reports to us is a violation of policy, then refuse to take any action on reports".

So a thing that was supposed to explicitly communicate shared expectations and norms, instead becomes a way to minimize risk of bad PR for the project by silencing anyone who believed they were operating in good faith.

[1] - https://aworkinglibrary.com/writing/accountability-sinks

CoC are redundant, weak, Cider House rules with the social contract. It's perfunctory, wishful thinking similar to digital government petitions meant to waste people's time with pseudo-participation.

A man suffused by his own myth. I stopped reading when he said he codified the rules of open source. Eric, you don't get to define what a DECUS tape is.

People who run projects get to decide if they have a CoC or not, Raymond isn't the boss of the bazaar or the cathedral.