OpenZFS / ZFS On Linux Is Introducing A Code of Conduct To Encourage New Contributors

[starshipeleven]

And that is the problem, people are not robots... nor Vulcans.

I'm not talking of suppressing emotions in your whole life to reach a higher level of being.

I'm talking about being able to at least pretend to be a functional adult human in a mailing list about software development.

Most people are too socially protected these days and can't even deal with reality.

I'm going to shock you: this isn't a new thing. People that can't deal with reality have always been a thing.

[nils_]

Wouldn't that imply that "sexual attention" is fine on mailing lists so long as the other person feels fine with it? This just sounds dumb.

Indeed. It makes very little sense. Anything that goes into the realm of flirting or whatever the hell "sexual attention" means will usually be through channels unrelated to the project, unless you want the product to regulate the personal conduct of/between all members at all times. Convoluted scenario: I'm a project member and another project member meets me at a bar and inititas "sexual attention" not knowing we're members in the same project. I don't welcome said attention. Is this a CoC violation?

So I would like to have a definition of "sexual attention" - I mean when you're hitting on someone ambiguity is already built in, as well as not knowing in advance what might be welcome or unwelcome. This just seems like a minefield where the project might end up having to adjudicate personal relationships between project members.

I think even welcome sexual attention doesn't have a place on official mailing lists, irc channels etc.. The word "unwelcome" is pretty ambiguous in and on itself. Perhaps "stay on-topic" would be sufficient.

Wouldn't that imply that "sexual attention" is fine on mailing lists so long as the other person feels fine with it? This just sounds dumb.

[tildearrow]

Diversity is one of our huge strengths,

And code quality isn't. Yeah, let's focus on having equal distribution of races and genders rather than a good codebase.

The difference between Terms and Code of Conduct is that usually "Code of Conduct"s have to almost ALWAYS mention unnecessary things like "diversity" and "inclusion"...

Does anyone really get encouraged by contributing to a project by it having a Code of Conduct?
Like, really?

I think you won... 🙁

[nils_]

Does anyone really get encouraged by contributing to a project by it having a Code of Conduct?
Like, really?

It should be possible to measure if a project gets more contributions after adopting a CoC. I doubt it makes a difference, though their may be chilling effects with overly restrictive codes, simply because the rules are hard/impossible to follow. Or they just make a project and it's members seem difficult to interact with.

[nils_]

That said, it's no different than having to swear in at court -- So swearing to a book I don't follow or believe in is supposed to magically make me a good and honest person...sure

Once you're sworn in there is a penalty for perjury that doesn't exist for "regular" speech. Of course in most civilized countries the religious form is optional.

[skeevy420]

That is based on the naive assumption that unreasonable and terrible people, while flaunting normal social rules, would magically follow a CoC. And this is the problem I have with establishing a CoC: What does it say about project members that they feel the need to write down rules that should be common sense?

If I ask you to sign a document stating that you're not going to sexually harass anyone, would you think that is reasonable or would you be insulted?

About as insulted as I feel when I have to sign the Sam's Club CoC where I have to agree to be treated like a thief and be searched before I leave the building.

That said, it's no different than having to swear in at court -- So swearing to a book I don't follow or believe in is supposed to magically make me a good and honest person...sure

At least the ZFS CoC only contains common sense, common decency rules that people should be following already.

[nils_]

It's just there to set ground rules, and they're things reasonable people would already be following anyway. Unless you're being a terrible person, it doesn't effect you.

That is based on the naive assumption that unreasonable and terrible people, while flaunting normal social rules, would magically follow a CoC. And this is the problem I have with establishing a CoC: What does it say about project members that they feel the need to write down rules that should be common sense?

If I ask you to sign a document stating that you're not going to sexually harass anyone, would you think that is reasonable or would you be insulted?

[cb88]

I'm not surprised, you are socially awkward after all.

It's not about preferences. A project's mailing list is not the place where you meet and woo people, it's a place where you discuss actual project and code.
Logic and rationality should be the only contents (ideally).

And that is the problem, people are not robots... nor Vulcans. Most people are too socially protected these days and can't even deal with reality.

[skeevy420]

squash my commits harder, daddy

Ah, push it, push it real good
Ah, push it, git push it real good
Hey! Ow!
Push it good!