Every time you come home and the SQLite developers aren't having sex with your wife, you should appreciate their code of Ethics. What other software makes that promise? Heck, Oracle probably probably upcharges, $500,000 or more for a 6-9s no adultery support plan (and that still gives them 52 minutes a year to commit adultery with your wife!)
I guess all the contributions magically appear out of thin air since nobody is allowed to contribute from outside the organization and nobody has ever joined the organization to contribute from the inside either.
>The founder of SQLite and all current developers have pledged to follow the spirit of The Rule to the best of their ability. [...] In other words, the developers are saying: "We will treat you this way regardless of how you treat us."
I would definitely not be able to honestly commit to such a pledge. Do you think they will add a "(except epa095)" if I get hired? Or maybe I just won't get hired. IDK, but just like OP I read it as a requirement for contributing.
Why not? If you're, for example, irreligious, then the best of your ability obviously doesn't include religious observations (and in fact, one could even make a solid argument that "interactions with each other, with their clients, and with the larger SQLite user community" don't touch the religious portions of Benedictine rules even for religious SQLite contributors because the clauses talking about relationship with God or Christ are simply not applicable to these interactions because none of the developers, clients, or larger SQLite user community include God or Christ). For example I'm a 110% atheist and yet I'd have zero problems with this. And again, you seem to be selectively ignoring the "this is not mandatory" part for some reason. If that part is a lie then the whole document is worthless as a guideline. You can't take a document telling you what to do and assume that it's randomly lying to you. If did that, then you'd have to consider your whole expected behavior to be unknowable.
Granted, it is a bit complicated to figure out what it means to pledge to follow the "spirit" of a rule which includes the rule that anyone can choose not to follow it.
But you asked why I would not be able to commit to such a pledge. For me pledging is a kind of social contract (I don't belive in God, so its not between me and it), and I care quite alot that other people know that when I promise something it means something. So it becomes important that we, me and the people who care about the pledge, agree on what it means. If we all agree that it essentially means nothing, then fine, I pledge. But if it means something, what does it really mean?
It says "They [the founder of SQLite and all current developers] view The Rule as their promise to all SQLite users of how the developers are expected to behave". So the developers view it as a promise of how the developers are expected to behave. If I take the pledge, and start working there, am I breaking the pledge if I:
- Don't "[...] love the Lord God with my whole heart, my whole soul, and my whole strength."? [1]
- Don't love fasting. [13]
- Prefers cremation to burying. [17]
- Make people laugh [54-55]
etc etc, you probably get the point. There are a lot of rules, and they can all be interpreted. It is kind of hard to be certain that we all agree on what it actually means to pledge to follow the spirit of these 72 rules.
So, that is why I find it hard to commit to the pledge.
Now, I agree with you that is says that "No one is required to follow The Rule". But it also says that "They view The Rule as their promise to all SQLite users of how the developers are expected to behave". So, it very much says that the founder of SQLite (part of "They") promise SQLite users that he expect SQLlite developers to follow "the code". Maybe, because of the "No one is required to follow The Rule", that means essentially nothing. Or maybe it means something. IDK.
That's a really bad analogy because I'm really not being asked to identify as a Benedictine here. In fact in order for your analogy to be more correct, the exact opposite -- "they could just say they don't identify as men" -- would have to be said.
Don't forget 'was created for the purpose of filling in a box on "supplier registration" forms [.....] This document continues to be used for its original purpose - providing a reference to fill in the "code of conduct" box on supplier registration forms.'
> ...how could one possibly get this impression, when it literally says "No one is required to follow The Rule"?
Now hear here miss, while true that the board of directors are all men, and have been so for 5 decades, we reject any notion of sexism as we clearly have here a document which states that “We believe men are superior to women, but we do not require employees to hold this belief…” also it’s voluntary and a compete coincidence that all employees have voluntarily vowed that they agree to this and that all employees are also male. It can’t be sexist since we do not force anyone to agree to do anything.
Hope the context shift makes it a bit easier to see why some people might call this suspicious.
Not quite sure where the document says anything about women. While Benedictines couldn't include women, I strongly doubt that there is any such insinuation here.