[bitwize]

The Contributor Covenant is the gold standard for a reason: it is a response to the bigotry and harassment problems that were endemic to the open source communities. Alone it doesn't achieve much, but combined with a good faith enforcement board it helps keep a community a pleasant, joyful place to contribute to, for everyone. And that will increase software quality and attract quality people, aside from being, you know, the right thing to do.

The SQLite developers (developer?) are not interested in inviting more contributors to the table and that's fine, but for a functional public community the Contributor Covenant or something like it is pretty much table stakes.

[Ferrotin]

> it is a response to the bigotry and harassment problems that were endemic to the open source communities

Such as???

[Akronymus]

Advocating for removing a contributor for a statement on a different site, unrelated to the project, for example?

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

[account42]

And this is supposed to be a good thing?

[Akronymus]

I gave the only example I could think of where such drama happened. Which was incidentally started by the creator of the creator covenant.

[tpoacher]

> combined with a good faith enforcement

which, of course, is the elephant in the room, isn't it.

Good faith contributors don't need the code, because it was not written for them. It was written for the pathological cases.

And systems designed around pathological cases are themselves pathological.

[bitwize]

Good faith users don't need security policies because the security policies weren't written for them. They were written for the pathological cases.

Good faith citizens don't need laws because the laws weren't written for them, etc.

Systems designed around the pathological cases help keep those pathological cases at bay. They are a framework for allowing the good-faith people to continue to act in good faith without having to constantly worry about the pathological cases themselves. I'd love to go back to the days when people left their doors unlocked and no one had a password to get into their account, but those days are gone. So are the days of not having a code of conduct on your open source project.

[tpoacher]

Having safeguards, let alone against criminals, is a very different conversation to having a code of ethics.

Perhaps the fact that we as a society are so ready to associate codes of ethics with policing should be raising some red flags in how we think about this issue.

[FeepingCreature]

With good modding, no code is needed. And with bad modding, the best code imaginable can achieve nothing. It is all down to the quality of the modding.

[Spivak]

The whole point of having a code is to be a thing those mods can point to to justify the banhammer when people complain.

Everyone has a CoC, some people write them down.

[FeepingCreature]

Well, I just think that's a bit misleading.

The justification for the banhammer is "I think you should be banned." The CoC doesn't enable or permit the mods to ban you. The mods can ban you because they're the mods; "can ban you" is pretty much definitionally identical to "is a mod." At most a CoC can serve as a guidebook for users.

[krainboltgreene]

> With good modding, no code is needed

This is nonsensicle and shows a lack of understanding. A code of conduct is just a guidebook for users to understand how your moderators will act, what to expect in a community.

How does "good modding" remove the need for that?

[FeepingCreature]

I guess I agree with that. But then there's still no point in using a prefabricated code. The code should be a README, a guide for users to predict mod behavior. An aid to the primary modding tool.

Moderation starts and ends with the mods, not with the CoC. The CoC just saves labor.

Using a prefabricated CoC is what you do when you need to fulfill a checkbox item saying "has a CoC", but have no intention of actually following it.