[partdavid]

These are all very valid points, and I appreciate you making them!

But what I was trying to point out to GP is that the conversation here is not starting from 0. Certainly I'm not suggesting that ACM membership or their code is a sufficient answer, or the only possible answer.

As a tangent, I'll point out that often, codes of conduct or ethical guidelines aren't "policed" in the way you seem to imply--by some kind of active enforcement function. They generally come up after the fact, in some venue like a deposition or court case where questions like "did X act in accordance with the generally accepted standards and practices of Y". And I wouldn't expect the ACM to publicize most of what they do, anyway.

The reason I bring up ACM and their code of conduct is because a compatriot of mine has been advocating for companies to encourage or require their employees to become members of the ACM, and to pay for it. The idea being that progress can be made on becoming the kind of big-P professional GP is describing. I don't really know if that can work, but I do think it sounds like it's better than nothing. And that it could be a basis for improvement in time.

[dtaht]

I try to adhere to association of civil engineer's code of ethics:

https://www.asce.org/career-growth/ethics/code-of-ethics

I wish more software folk did.