Hacker News Reader

Comment by cdata | Hacker News Reader

Yes, we have considered the likely social dynamics of a discussion space with and without a code of conduct.

The discussion space is for our project which we are inviting other humans to contribute to. We are open and welcoming to all, but it's not the town square. We strongly prefer to work in a social context where every participant has explicitly agreed to be kind and respectful of each other, to recognize each other's humanity and to abstain from violence of any kind towards others.

Folks who won't agree to such terms may still fork our work or contribute on Github if they are so inclined.

View on HN

Isn't such a code of conduct generally implied? And isn't it more generous to wait until it is broken to bring it up?

Also, the rules are not so general or unambiguous as you've described them here. They mention speech patterns and topics that are highly loaded on contemporary politics.

To head off any uncertainty, the code of conduct we ask participants to agree to is nearly identical to the Rust Code of Conduct: https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct

I have found that all it takes for one remain on the right side of such a code is to have good will in one's heart towards other humans. We have hundreds of participants, a lot of lively and thoughtful discussion on a range of topics, and not a single user has been found in violation of the code of conduct to date.

You say you're welcoming to all. But that isn't true, because you refuse access to anyone who doesn't agree to these rules. And a subtantial fraction of people would not agree to them, as you well know, regardless of whether they would ever break them.

That you got them from somewhere else doesn't head off uncertainty in their interpretation. It does raise the possibility that they're a bit of groupthink spreading through the open source software scene, versus something your group believes in enough to have indpendently developed. Historically such things tend to function more as shibboleths than meaningful exercises and I suspect that's the case here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com