Many years ago, I read a comment on Slashdot saying "the fact of a programming language having a "code of conduct" makes it ripe for everlasting drama and politics."
The reason slashdot is no longer relevant as the go-to tech discussion site is just because everyone who loves hating on "modern" things like CoC stayed, and everyone else left. These days it would be more strange to see a major project NOT have a CoC than seeing one. There is drama and politics in any large org whether or not there is a CoC or not.
Slashdot was sold to another media company which had other priorities. Are you aware of its "redesign" drama strictly followed by that same new leadership? Many users left then and there.
I left a long time ago. I think around the same time as CmdrTaco. But the place was basically just tech Luddites and Microsoft bashing so it became a bit repetitive. Also: HN.
Slashdot is a good example how a vastly unpopular redesign to make the site more "modern" can bring the whole business down. It's not even the bad redesign per se; it's sticking to it, and not reversing on it. A real shame in my opinion as I think that auto-moderation system is the best I've seen.
It was ridiculously easy to game the Slashdot moderation system. You knew what topics would get upvoted -- positive about Linux, negative about something like SCO during the lawsuit period. It was not difficult to accumulate karma.
I'm not sure if that was the fault of moderation system. This is more of an echo chamber effect which exists everywhere where there are humans involved. Not sure if technology can change that.
When I read about codes of conduct like this I worry about humnan relations. Does remote work cause the need for CoC? The over prescription of interactions seem like sci-fi to me. I haven’t worked in an office since the last millennium.
No, CoCs became a trend way before covid made remote work possible for the masses. They initially were demanded by project members after high-profile scandals of some kind, usually racist or otherwise discriminatory bullshit, sexual assault on conferences or bullying (Linus Torvalds for example used to be infamous for his language), and then other projects (or their members) wanted ones as well as a preventive measure for the future.
For what it's worth, I dislike CoCs because many of them are written with the assumption that people will behave like utter trash without being explicitly told not to and I grew up with the old "Don't be an asshole" rule [1]... but given what happened in the past where people were clearly incapable of not being assholes and communities having splintered over it, they seem to be inevitable.
I dislike CoCs because they aren't what they claim to be: Instruments to protect people. They are tools of power, ready to be used when needed to bully or oust someone. I therefore really don't understand the broad acceptance or even call for Code of Conducts.
I think this is a reasonable concern. The most recent episode of drama out of Rust is a pretty clear example of problematic behavior by some leadership person, and so it'll be interesting to see whether equally clear consequences will result. In other words, it'll be interesting to see whether their code of conduct is worth the bytes it is stored in.
> Instruments to protect people. They are tools of power, ready to be used when needed to bully or oust someone.
They are both.
A CoC, like other weapons, is more or less value-free. The CoC itself doesn't care what you point it at. It's a question of who is wielding it, and who they're wielding it against.
The problem is most people will in fact not be assholes, but the ones who have a disproportionate effect, because there's no direct penalty. Someone can't stand in your yard and loudly shout personal abuse for very long without getting hauled away by the police*, but there's no such enforcement mechanism online.
[*] yes, it can be more complicated than this. you get my meaning.
> The reason slashdot is no longer relevant as the go-to tech discussion site is just because everyone who loves hating on "modern" things like CoC stayed, and everyone else left.
That was certainly not my experience; I left because all discussions were monopolised by a few seemingly unemployed accounts to shame any and everyone into agreeing with whatever the vocal minority at the time was pushing.
When I stopped reading it, the only people left were those who were constantly using shaming language on anyone who didn't agree about things like a code of conduct, or words are violence too, etc.
The fascist part of it is forcing people to use them and threatening them when they don't understand the need to address a non-problem with terminology, duties, and responsibilities they don't agree with.
You can find no trace of childish bickering in the language, tools, libraries, or documentation. I'm not sure why people doing silly things off in the distance would bias you against using Rust, the use of which would not involve those people ever.
While I think your statement is true, a few reasons:
1 - I will inevitably end up on some mailing list or forums when researching libraries, correct way to do things, etc, where such people interact.
2 - As 'governors' of the language, how can I trust them to make sound investments in the future? I don't want to just learn a language and tooling as a one off.
3 - I don't want to support organizations that act this way, even if the language were perfect.
1) This is an accurate complaint. By my estimation (on the official discord) they interact in such a way for an amortized three of the 1440 minutes in the day.
2) The language is pretty great. Further serious investment is going to be primarily in the third-party libraries department.
3) You need make no contributions, financial or otherwise. I am probably a net drain on the foundation's resources.
> I don't use Rust, but the constant childish bickering has turned me away from even caring to.
Same. I want to use it because technically it's the right choice for a few projects, but when I talk to people in my organization I still label it as "too immature and volatile to adopt today, but worth watching". I was hoping the adoption by Linux and Microsoft would be the forcing factor to stabilize it, but the governance aspect still seems chaotic. I'll keep watching and hopefully it calms down such that adopting it won't be a risk. Or maybe the good parts will just get adopted by a more stable (w.r.t. governance and standardization) language.
Rust is pretty stable and clearly past the point of being immature and volatile. A few issues that the internet has blown up lately doesn't change that.
They are doing a fantastic job of creating drama all by themselves.
I don't use Rust, but the constant childish bickering has turned me away from even caring to.