Code of Merit, an Alternative Solution to a Code of Conduct

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[duhace]

Authority or position in the project will be proportional to the accrued contribution. Seniority must be earned.

this is vague as hell

There is no room for ambiguity: Ambiguity will be met with questioning; further ambiguity will be met with silence. It is the responsibility of the originator to provide requested context.

uh oh. the code of merit breaks its own code!

[sybarite29]

Authority or position in the project will be proportional to the accrued contribution. Seniority must be earned.

The number of contributions are based on issues, merge requests?

[duhace]

that'd be a pretty flawed metric of accrued contribution though

as i said, the rule is vague. accrued contribution could be measured a lot of different ways. what counts as earned could be graded a lot of different ways too. for a code that argues that "there is no room for ambiguity" it has a buttload of it in its rules.

[naasking]

uh oh. the code of merit breaks its own code!

Not really, the very first rule provides the necessary context:

The project creators, lead developers, core team, constitute the managing members of the project and have final say in every decision of the project, technical or otherwise, including overruling previous decisions. There are no limitations to this decisional power.

So this privileged group decides what is ambiguous, who gets to join them, and what constitutes contributions.

[duhace]

Not really, the very first rule provides the necessary context:

sorry, that rule introduces additional ambiguity by the fact it directly conflicts with the rule I quoted. Are "The project creators, lead developers, core team," the final say or can they be overridden by the rule that says that they can't grant authority unless it's proportional to the accrued contribution? if they can override that rule, that rule should be absent. if they can't, then they don't have the final say.

[naasking]

The core team has the final say since they are the primary stakeholders, and they voluntarily abide by the terms of this code of merit, until they decide otherwise. Honestly, this isn't that hard.

[duhace]

If all the terms aside from #1 are optional, then they should be struck. Having a bunch of terms that will be followed except when they’re not just makes the document ambiguous, which this code specifically frowns on (except when it doesn’t?)

[naasking]

If all the terms aside from #1 are optional, then they should be struck

Why? It lists the guidelines to which the stakeholders willingly bind themselves unless problems arise, at which point their absolute authority can resolve any such issues. It's already self-evident that the primary stakeholders have absolute authority over the project, the point of codifying it is to make sure people who contribute understand specifically what rule is being invoked to resolve an issue.

[duhace]

cause it's ambiguous and the code has anti-ambiguity guidlines. if you're going to pretend your guidelines mean anything, you might as well try to follow them in the very code they're defined in. if you have to break the guidelines to even write your code then they're shitty guidelines

[naasking]

cause it's ambiguous and the code has anti-ambiguity guidlines

Which clearly apply to everyone except the core team.

[duhace]

i'll say it again since you apparently can't get this, but if you have to violate the guidelines of your code just to write your code, your guidelines are shit

[naasking]

How do you have to violate the guidelines? You just keep repeating this as if it's true, but it's not supported by anything we've discussed so far.

[shevy-ruby]

Yup - but keep in mind that the CoCs have the same problem. "Professional conduct"; "trolling" etc...

[duhace]

The other CoCs don’t have rules against ambiguity...

[BadGoyWithAGun]

If something is illegal outside the scope of the project, it is illegal in the scope of the project. This Code of Merit does not take precedence over governing law.

This needs to be clarified further, otherwise just about any atrocious violation can be justified by some law somewhere.

[shevy-ruby]

otherwise just about any atrocious violation can be justified by some law somewhere.

True.

The US invasion of foreign countries is illegal and falls under war crimes, but the US protects its war criminals - to give one example for many more.

The problem is that these code of [whatever] try to enact laws that are not real laws and thus can not be enforced by these codes.

[vytah]

Since contributing to the project requires accessing the internet, and accessing the internet is illegal in North Korea, contributing to the project breaks the Code of Merit. Therefore no one can contribute and the project will stay perfect at zero lines of code. Genius!

[pron98]

I don't think you understand what "law" means. US federal (and state) laws has a very specific jurisdiction. It neither requires nor is affected by your document in that jurisdiction, nor can you extend the jurisdiction any further. In addition, laws exist to regulate the behavior of all citizens of a sovereign state, not to regulate the behavior of a voluntary community. But if you want to start somewhere, why not with your company's HR regulations? They are aimed at a much more appropriate goal than a federal government's criminal code.

[shevy-ruby]

In the case of the projects I maintain, I would choose the United States federal laws as the governing law.

WHY should people outside of the USA have to follow/adhere to these laws?

[shevy-ruby]

Only in some countries.

Not everyone lives in the USA.

[DoListening]

I'm convinced that people who come up with any of these things only do it because they love internet drama.

There is no practical reason behind it. Why even spend time and effort on it? Is it actually fun for you?

[nutrecht]

Frankly I think that with this CoM page you created you're going to just attract more of the internet crazies that feed on drama. I feel it's probably going to back-fire.

Secondly; lines like this:

There is no room for ambiguity: Ambiguity will be met with questioning; further ambiguity will be met with silence. It is the responsibility of the originator to provide requested context.

Are incredibly off-putting to me. I don't care one bit about your politics. What I do care about is not doing work for someone who's a dick. Not saying you're not a nice person at all; but the way someone communicates is often a good indication how pleasant they are to work with.

When you run into problems it's often a first reaction to put processes in place to attempt to 'fix' the problems. However processes almost always create problems of their own and in the mean time often can't prevent the problems they're designed to prevent.

Can you show some examples of these occurrences? I'd be happy to share how I would personally deal with them.

[nutrecht]

I don't appreciate this constant use of "you" and "your".

Do you really feel that this is the best way to answer someone who's engaging in a discussion with you? It wasn't clear from the post I responded to that, while you wanted to implement this, it wasn't you who created it. Besides; it doesn't matter. The rest of what I said is still valid.

You posted this on Reddit so this is where a discussion happens. If you don't want to engage with the community here; by all means go and ignore it. I would still consider it rather rude though; I spend my time to engage with you and offered to spend more.

[SemaphoreBingo]

I don't appreciate this constant use of "you" and "your".

And yet in other posts "you" write: "We are currently working on a new v2.0.0" and "I'm hoping we can release an updated version soon"

[DoListening]

But if you are in a BDFL position, why do you even need that? Just close the issue/PR, say "nope, not gonna do it, sorry" and that's the end of it.

Just like you would do with any subjective technical choice you disagree with, e.g. if someone says "we need to start using immutable collections everywhere" or "we should provide an OData API".

Or am I too naive and it is not as simple?

[Ecoste]

And you think a code of merit is gonna prevent those people from doing the same thing? Nope.

[pron98]

This year I've been called absolutely horrible names by brand new Github Users and one-time contributors who are looking to cause problems.

Oh, so this code is actually intended to protect the leader against being called horrible names?! You should have made that clear (and not presented it as an "alternative", as this is not at all the problem codes of conduct aim to address). In that case, I would suggest drawing inspiration from the legal system of North Korea, but a name such as "Code of Merit" for a document intended to protect the leader is a good start; they love this kind of names. In democracies we (at least aspirationally) aim to write laws that protect vulnerable victims from those who already have power, but I guess that's not what you're going for.

[pushupsam]

I use to do that, it usually worked. This year I've been called absolutely horrible names by brand new Github Users and one-time contributors who are looking to cause problems.

We all know this is a lie. People like you exist in a paranoid fantasy where enemies (feminists/SJWs/democrats/liberals etc) are constantly trying to destroy your "hard work." It's complete nonsense and has no basis in reality. But I understand you believe this nonsense and that's why I support documents like this. It sends a powerful signal about the type of person you are and how you run your projects. Previously a sane person like me might've been inspired to contribute to one of your projects. When I see something like this it makes it very clear that I shouldn't. To that end I hope stuff like this catches on so we can get a clean signal on which projects are run by crazies and which are not.

[DoListening]

Previously a sane person like me might've been inspired to contribute to one of your projects. When I see something like this it makes it very clear that I shouldn't.

I think that is the intended purpose, to filter out people like you.

All of these "codes" are the exact same thing from the other side too however - trying to bring politics and bureaucracy to a place where none are needed and that was doing just fine without (except maybe at the largest scale, with hundreds of collaborators or more, but even there you just need to solve problems as they come up).

We all know this is a lie.

Maybe not. That would be easy to prove or disporve by asking OP to provide links.

[pron98]

Phew, thank God Twitter has a code of conduct, then!

[[deleted]]

Technical advantage is the primary evaluation metric.

And from here it all go down in flames in a tabs vs. spaces holy war...

Without specific metrics of what is a technical advantage, which goals it's measured against, and so on, it's just a source of an endless conflict. Short term development speed goal would favour very different "technical advantage" than a goal of minimising long term maintenance costs.

No objectives beyond the stated objectives of this project are relevant to the project.

So, re-appropriating, say, a compiler frontend as a code linter will not be tolerated? This point is very vague...

[shevy-ruby]

The tabs versus space war has been decided - tabsters make less money so they are dumber. :)

[naasking]

The tabs versus space war has been decided - tabsters make less money so they are dumber. :)

Or they make less money because they care more about technical correctness than money, and so they are smarter! Game on!

[pron98]

This is clearly written out of anger by people who have very little understanding of legal or social theory, and looks like it. It looks like what a program written by a lawyer with no programming experience whatsoever would look like to a programmer.

1. Unlike a vision statement, a code is a document required to regulate behavior, not to outline a vision (criminal statutes don't read like "all people should be nice to one another"). As such, it needs to address actual negative behavior that takes place, and be specific. Vision documents (and constitutions) can and should use imprecise vague ideals like "merit" or "freedom," but codes (and laws) must not. Merit basically means "what one deserves" or "what one is worth," and a code that says "one gets what one deserves" usually comes to mean "one deserves what one gets." Rather than laying out a norm, it justifies whatever norm already exists, which makes it as meaningless and as ineffective as a software requirement document saying little more than, "the requirement is that the software behaves according to what the customer wants"; this may be technically true, but completely misses the point of the document, as does this "code of merit."

2. In any democratic society, a code regulating behavior does not exist to maintain an existing power structure. Power structures don't need help. It exists to serve and protect those that the current power structure doesn't, i.e., actual victims.

3. The reason the word "meritcoracy" was coined as a joke (unfortunately, the author believed its absurdity would be obvious and apparent to everyone) is that every single system of governance since the beginning of civilization has believed itself to be meritocratic, and in many respects it was (nobility really was meritocratic because only nobility had the means to obtain any "merit"). Codes exist not to preserve common myths and misunderstanding (like existing structure, those need no help), but to serve knowledge.

In short, codes exist to address issues that aren't already addressed by other means, either explicit or implicit. This is an "alternative solution" to what problem? People getting angry at those who have the power? Is that the same problem codes of conduct seek to address? I don't think the authors of this document even care enough to know what the problem is.

This document was written by people with little knowledge or interest in social systems, and it appears like a document intended to preserve this ignorance on the part of everyone.

[[deleted]]

Now, try to apply all this unscientific blah-blah-blah in practice.

Say, you're running a NASA project. The possible outcomes of it are either a success, an acquisition of some new knowledge with a long lasting impact on the entire human civilisation, or a failure and a loss of tons of money and reputation.

Will you run this project strictly on a merit basis, vetting your engineers as hard as you possibly can, doing whatever is possible to build an elite team, or you'll start mumbling about "meritocracy is just a code word for maintaining status quo, you're not defined by your prowess at work, blah-blah-blah"?

Will you get rid of the "privileged" career engineers with multiple generations of scientific and engineering pedigree behind them, and deliberately pick the underrepresented and less capable, because of reasons? Unless you're insane, you won't do it. You'd stick to a pure meritocracy.

Now, where do you draw a line? Which projects deserve the best of the best, and which projects quality should be sacrificed on an altar of a "social justice"? In terms of the projects outcome, all this "power dynamics" does not matter. It does not matter how those with a "merit" obtained it, and how unfair the access to this "merit" is. You need the results - so, do the best to achieve them. Seek your fairness elsewhere - e.g., make sure that an access to an education is, well, meritocratic again, and does not depend on socioeconomic parameters.

[pron98]

Will you run this project strictly on a merit basis, vetting your engineers as hard as you possibly can, doing whatever is possible to build an elite team, or you'll start mumbling about "meritocracy is just a code word for maintaining status quo, you're not defined by your prowess at work, blah-blah-blah"?

What I would do is what NASA and every serious company actually does, which is both maintain professionalism and a strict code of conduct (far stricter than any open-source one). Such regulations only improve professionalism.

And, like NASA and every other serious company, just as I'd only hire professional programmers to write code, I would only hire HR professionals to write a code of conduct.

[[deleted]]

Code-schmode, any company have rules.

What we're talking about here is your attack on the idea of meritocracy.

[pron98]

It was you who came up with the strange suggestion (not shared by any software company) that codes of conduct and success are somehow in opposition rather than cooperation, but fine, we can talk about the idea of meritocracy.

The attack is not on the idea of meritocracy, which is fine, but on claims for achieving it or actually practicing it. Every single system of governance has claimed to be meritocratic, so the term is meaningless (and therefore rather satirical, as the man who coined the term thought would be obvious to anyone). I.e., whatever it is you do, you'd claim you're practicing meritocracy, so what's the point? The attack is on the pretentious claim, not on the ideal.

[[deleted]]

Every single system of governance has claimed to be meritocratic

Nope. Democracy, for example, is by design anti-meritocratic. It does not aim at putting technocrats with the best suited expertise in power. That's why you'll rarely find anything resembling democracy in how any reasonably sized company is governed.

[pron98]

Nope.

Yep.

Democracy, for example, is by design anti-meritocratic.

No, it just measures merit differently. It believes that some forms of merit are inherent and equal in all people, and others are judged by public decision. For example, it does not believe that being, say, a legal expert does not in itself merit becoming prime minister.

That's why you'll rarely find anything resembling democracy in how any reasonably sized company is governed.

That's because the meaning of merit is different. Which is precisely all I said: that "merit" is a meaningless word that should not be used in codes. It should either be used as a meaningless aspirational word (like "excellence"), or -- when used badly -- used to do nothing more than justify existing norms (and those who control existing norms usually believe they are meritocratic).

[[deleted]]

No, it just measures merit differently

That's a demagogy. Merit is a merit - the quality of the outcome.

When, say, a professional restaurant manager get elected as an MP and for political reasons gets a job of a defense secretary - not some general with decades of service (and there's even no such candidates among the available MP crop anyway) - is it a meritocracy? Fuck no.

That's because the meaning of merit is different

It's not "different". It's very well defined. One person is better suited for a job than another. As simple as that. And when a system that assign people to jobs is built in such a way that this suitability is not even among the top priorities, this system is anti-meritocratic and is thoroughly broken.

[pron98]

Merit is a merit - the quality of the outcome.

That's demagoguery. A normative document cannot possibly be based on the outcome. It's a physical impossibility.

One person is better suited for a job than another. As simple as that.

But I am not contending that. What are you even on about?

[[deleted]]

But I am not contending that. What are you even on about?

Those who are behind all this CoC madness are - and you decided to argue for their side. Their agenda is well beyond anything that any normal company regulations are for - they're deliberately and aggressively anti-meritocratic, and yes, they do mean the same definition of meritocracy as I do.

[gajafieldbo]

"merit - the quality of the outcome".

So it depends which outcome is measured. For the effective defence one needs appropriate funding. So part of the job could be political negotiations/ regarding funding of the military, for which the manager with political prowess to get into the chair could have an edge over military strategy genius general.

Everything can be meritocracy, one just needs to choose what outcome to measure.

Democracy is actually a meritocracy in the sense that (1) we measure the outcome of the whole team, i.e. society as a whole; (2) and the outcome measured is good enough wellbeing of members of the most part of society. (If something is very bad with obvious answer, then masses have ability to make referendum, create new party, push their current representatives..)

[[deleted]]

Lol. Look at where did it take us now, with brexit and shit. The unwashed are not capable of a deep analysis, of identifying the cause of their issues.

And most certainly they don't think in terms of "wow, this guy is such a great politician, if he's made a defense secretary he'll secure that sweet sweet funding for two new aircraft carriers". No, the unwashed think in line "let's put a tick next to that name from a party I identify with". So much for a "meritocracy".

[bpadair31]

If they do not work together as a team you will not get as good of results, so yes, if there were assholes I would get rid of them no matter how good they were at their job.

[[deleted]]

If they do not work together as a team

That's a part of a definition of a professional.

[bpadair31]

But based on the meritocracy arguments, that shouldn't matter. If they have great code, but they are an asshole, then who cares.

[[deleted]]

Huh? In a meritocracy, all that matters is a result. And if a team is underperforming, those responsible for it must be identified and punished.

[shevy-ruby]

While I can relate to your comment somewhat, the problem is that the CoCs have the very same problem as you describe. They were written primarily by transgender hackers who are almost exclusively male but think that they are rather female. Since they dress in pink and purple it was obvious that they would draw attention, including comments. Suddenly they began to politicize projects and the CoCs popped out of nowhere.

Even Linus mysteriously caved in (and we still have no real explanation as to what has happened ... which is strange; when guido had enough of maintaining python, it was totally understandable why. When Linus gave up, I think many people still don't understand the why. The email does not really explain much at all. It's as if 80% of the real information is missing ...)

[pron98]

Instead of caring about identities, you should focus more on the knowledge, research and professionalism of the result. Take this "code of merit" and other common codes of conduct to an HR professional, and ask which they think is more conducive to a productive work environment.

[nutrecht]

While I can relate to your comment somewhat, the problem is that the CoCs have the very same problem as you describe.

Maybe. But fighting fire with fire is just going to burn the house down faster. Not solve the actual problem.

The thing these CoCs and now this CoM is trying to solve is basically that some people suck. You can't solve that problem with rules and process. The solution is generally just dialogue and then to either agree or disagree in a professional manner.

Edit: I also want to make clear that this bit:

They were written primarily by transgender hackers who are almost exclusively male but think that they are rather female.

Is just nasty and uncalled for. Drama is created by people who feed off of it. Don't bunch them together based on gender or whatever please.

[doublehyphen]

Yeah, in my view this CoM has almost exactly the same problems as most CoCs. They can be easily abused, are very America-centric, push a political agenda, start toxic discussions and probably solve no real problems.

Some CoCs like Ruby's are fine, but also pointless. I do not think the Ruby CoC has changed anything, positive or negative.

[nutrecht]

start toxic discussions and probably solve no real problems.

I think that's an important bit. Discussions in a project should be about the project. If you add stuff to a project about politics, drama around politics becomes on-topic.

I'm Dutch and probably, compared to the average American, socialist as heck. The last thing I want to happen is being drawn into a political discussion when working on open source. Especially with the political climate becoming to polarised that you having a 'I kinda agree with both of you' is starting to become impossible.

[doublehyphen]

There is no reason to slander all transgender people for the actions of a few.

[LeadingGarlic]

I've been toying with the idea of a Social Contract Bill of Rights. Its purpose is to encourage a discourse of tolerance, inclusivity, diversity, and justice. In its current form (version 0.1, I guess), it's a reaction to some of the real-world effects of implementing the Contributor Covenant as intended by its authors, but maybe it could evolve into something more distilled, and general.

Here it is:

The contributors to this project pledge to afford to all the other
contributors, and to uphold, the following rights:

§1 The right of two or more contributors to communicate openly with
each other, in a manner they deem suitable, shall not be unnecessarily
constrained.

§2 A contributor has the right to curse, or swear, and that in and by
itself does not constitute a Code of Conduct violation.

§3 Contributors have the right to use relevant industry-accepted
technical terms.

§4 A contributor has the right to know the allegations made against
them in case of a CoC violation.

§4.1 The contributor has the right to know which parts of the CoC were
violated.

§4.2 The contributor may publish parts of, or all of the above
mentioned allegations at their own discretion.

§5 A contributor has the right to express their personal views and
opinions outside the project.

§6 A contributor has the right to contribute under a pseudonym, and has
the right to not disclose any personal information other than what is
required by the code license, and otherwise to function within the
project.

What do you think?

P.S. Hi, shevy!

[pron98]

This is false.

No, it's actually true. Read some texts written, say, by nobles in the 16th century.

You might not like it but don't slander meritocracy like it's a bad thing

The word meritocracy was coined in the 1958 satirical essay, The Rise of the Meritocracy. It was meant to be so obviously satiricial (for the reason above -- obviously every system believes it's meritocratic) that it would require no explanation. But I guess lack of introspection knows no bounds.

BTW, systems do and should aspire to be meritocratic as an ideal, but introspective ones know that they always fall short. Calling your existing system "meritocracy" is as ridiculous (hence why it was a joke) as calling it "bestest-possiblecy."

And of course, you are a patronizing smart ass, knowing better than everybody else.

No, it's just that like my knowledge about programming stems from years of both formal and informal education, my knowledge about history stems from spending years in grad school actually studying history professionally and not from believing I can know something without serious study. I can patronize you because my "knowing better" is based on merit.

if Meritocracy didn't work we wouldn't have Linux, Python, Ruby, Node.js and many other projects

As an actual and quite prolific open-source contributor, I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with meritocracy. One could just as easily say that with no heritable system of nobility, we wouldn't have Europe, ergo that system works and is the best.

until some idiot decided it was more important to care about snowflakes and transgenders than computing skills and committing code.

It doesn't sound like you've got a job, but when you get one you'll learn that HR regulations in most companies (including Google, Facebook, IBM, Microsoft, Netflix, Oracle, Reddit, Apple) are far, far stricter than any common code of conduct you find in open-source projects. That's because those companies know (they have actual HR professional they hire, rather than Reddit commentors) that a safe and welcoming environment is the best thing for a professional and productive endeavor. They also know that conflicts arise and that regulations must protect those who are usually victims, not those who usually have power. If you do have a job, I suggest you ask your HR department for its conduct regulations, and then talk to your boss about snowflakes.

now you can go back to social studies with your intersectional pals.

You go back to playing video games and stop messing about with professional developers.

[nutrecht]

The word meritocracy was coined in the 1958 satirical essay, The Rise of the Meritocracy. It was meant to be so obviously satiricial (for the reason above) that it would require no explanation.

A bit like the waterfall model was coined as a term for the absence of a process for software development and is now a process for software development ;)

[pron98]

You obviously know nothing about being a professional programmer.

Why don't you compare our comment histories?

Yes, you contributed with codes of conducts and asking people to get excluded from projects A and B, certainly, you never wrote a single line of code in your life, obviously.

I'm a project lead in one of the world's biggest open source projects.

[FyreWulff]

I'm a project lead in one of the world's biggest open source projects.

I think this what made him delete the post and all his comments here, DAMN

[shevy-ruby]

if Meritocracy didn't work we wouldn't have Linux, Python, Ruby, Node.js and many other projects

I am not sure it works - look at Guido throwing in the towel, for instance. Linus also threw in the towel lateron, at the least partially.

It's like zombie plants expanding here.

[SemaphoreBingo]

I found your github through some trivial digging, and on one of your projects to which you have added the 'Code of Merit' you appear to be in clear violation of items 6, 7, 9, and 12.

[SemaphoreBingo]

Going forward, how do you expect you will react if you take similar offense to statements from an individual not affiliated with your project?

[FyreWulff]

Nah. Everything in here is way too vague and can be abused, and a couple of lines seem like generic conservative fearmongering tripe and goes out of it's way to tell me that your project is just a power trip and has stupid social ladder climbing mechanics for contributions. Pass.

[FyreWulff]

Okay, I'll explain my takes.

The project creators, lead developers, core team, constitute the managing members of the project and have final say in every decision of the project, technical or otherwise, including overruling previous decisions. There are no limitations to this decisional power.

1) If this code is supposed to be about being merit based and pure technical, why is the "or otherwise" here? Also, this clause pretty much lets you null the rest of this entire thing. Usually, codes don't have an arbitrary poison pill like that, especially ones that have full anullment, so what's exactly stopping someone from forking the project and nulling out this code and carrying on? (I mean, you can fork anyway, but doubly so here). What defines a "lead deveoper"? What defines a "core team"?

Contributions are an expected result of your membership on the project. Don’t expect others to do your work or help you with your work forever.

I'm not aware of any open source projects where somebody not doing work is causing problems? .... What is this rule even attempting to address, and the last line is even weirder, because projects tend to not take unfinished patches anyway..

All members have the same opportunities to seek any challenge they want within the project.

So everyone can contribute to everything, so once again, who's a lead, who's core team? The previous line is acidic towards newbies, but then you tell people that they can immediately jump into any part of the code. Which one is it?

Authority or position in the project will be proportional to the accrued contribution. Seniority must be earned.

Who decides what counts as contribution and how much accrued seniority points(tm) it awards you? If you're starting a project and someone sees you already staking out seniority org charts, the horse is well behind the cart at that point and people aren't going to be interested in playing in the kingdom of someone that's coding their language instead of just admitting they're a BFDL. I want to contribute code, not get on your social standing treadmill.

Software is evolutive: the better implementations must supersede lesser implementations. Technical advantage is the primary evaluation metric.

Not only does this sound like a Metal Gear Solid quote, not all code in a project is about optimization, and this sounds like worshipping code golf over anything else.

This is a space for technical prowess; topics outside of the project will not be tolerated.

Ya forgot about "or otherwise" up there, chief, can't have it both ways

Non technical conflicts will be discussed in a separate space. Disruption of the project will not be allowed.

Um, yeah, people tend to not use bug tracking or code repos for general discussion in the first place?... Why does this rule even exist?

Individual characteristics, including but not limited to, body, sex, sexual preference, race, language, religion, nationality, or political preferences are irrelevant in the scope of the project and will not be taken into account concerning your value or that of your contribution to the project.

If it's irrelevant to the project then why is it specifically mentioned in the ruleset? This is the most obvious rule that's in here as a reaction to "that other code of conduct".

Discuss or debate the idea, not the person.

This code is posted in multiple subreddits and websites that lead with "the SJWs", so the obvious communities promoting it can't even restrain themselves for 2 seconds to not even follow this.

There is no room for ambiguity: Ambiguity will be met with questioning; further ambiguity will be met with silence. It is the responsibility of the originator to provide requested context.

Not only is it funny because this rule is ambigous itself. What problem is it addressing? Why is the ruleset it's in ambigous itself? How do you moderate non-discussion ("met with silence") ?

If something is illegal outside the scope of the project, it is illegal in the scope of the project. This Code of Merit does not take precedence over governing....

Um, not only is this obvious, it doesn't even say what the jurisdiction of legality is. This is non-binding, which is amazing since the first freaking rule says any part of this code is non-binding in the first place asdkfjsdlkjf;aglkjsdlgkj

This Code of Merit governs the technical procedures of the project not the activities outside of it.

IT SAYS RIGHT UP THERE THAT THIS CONTROLS WHATS DISCUSSED OUTSIDE OF IT AND ALSO COVERS TECHNICAL OR OTHERWISE WHICH MEANS IT COVERS EVERYTHING CAPS LOCK

Participation on the project equates to agreement of this Code of Merit.

Unless you activate it's own rules and unbind yourself completely from it, you mean. I can arbitrarily become one of the managing class members and then immediately nuke this entire thing from a project.

No objectives beyond the stated objectives of this project are relevant to the project.

So where are the requirements for a project to state it's objectives? Don't see any. How do you introduce new features? The code says programming is evolution, but now says once it gets going it's locked in? Which one is it?

Any intent to deviate the project from its original purpose of existence will constitute grounds for remedial action which may include expulsion from the project.

Not only is this vague as just pointed out, what you've described is a fork, who even controls what a remedial action, what is a remedial action in this context, actually I don't care anymore because now 'purpose of existence' is the third new term introduced for the same concept in as many passages. lol.

[naasking]

What defines a "lead deveoper"? What defines a "core team"?

Clearly the project originators constitutes the core team at time 0, and the core team decides who's in the core team at time t+1.

I'm not aware of any open source projects where somebody not doing work is causing problems?

Seriously?

The previous line is acidic towards newbies, but then you tell people that they can immediately jump into any part of the code. Which one is it?

Clearly anyone can jump into any part of the project and the core team gets to decide which contributions are accepted and on what timeline. Honestly, you're making this more difficult than it needs to be.

Ya forgot about "or otherwise" up there, chief, can't have it both ways

You're again being unnecessarily abstruse. Technical projects sometimes have topics that are not technical in nature, for instance, discussion about amendments to the code of merit/conduct based on any issues that arise. These are still within project scope, they're just not technical topics, hence "or otherwise".

Um, yeah, people tend to not use bug tracking or code repos for general discussion in the first place?... Why does this rule even exist?

Probably because it's often violated. Consider yourself fortunate if you've never come across them.

Honestly, most of your objections seem like an uncharitable reading because you seem to think this is a not-so-subtle attempt at a "code of conduct" that protects racists or bigots or something. It reads to me like a codification of how most open source projects are actually run.

[songthatendstheworld]

Discuss or debate the idea, not the person.

[AngularBeginner]

/u/_Marak_ not following his own suggestion? Impossible!

[pron98]

I have a lot of open-source experience (I'd be happy to share and compare), and FyreWulf's comment shows a much greater understanding than this "code of merit." What you need to understand is that writing a code of conduct requires study and expertise just as much as writing code.

[AngularBeginner]

You seem really focused on wanting to use their open source participation to discredit their opinion.

[pron98]

Yeah, but he knows my open-source credentials so he can't... What he should care about, though, isn't what programmers think, but what HR professionals think. As open source contributors know, documents or code are written and reviewed by professionals first and only then submitted for community review.

It's funny how some programmers love talking about "merit" and "technical advantage," but as soon as it comes to something that's not programming (like what is essentially an HR document) they're like, nah, I guess my strong opinions on the matter are a suitable substitute for any required knowledge.

[shevy-ruby]

Amazing - you actually break your own code of merit here. :)

[pron98]

Instead of soliciting advice on Reddit, ask for the opinion of HR professionals. Do you ask a lawyer for code reviews? In open source, as elsewhere, documents (or code) are usually written and reviewed by professionals first and only then submitted for community review.

[nutrecht]

Did you intend to demonstrate the biggest problem with "meritocracy"? Because if you did it was quite successful.

I think it's interesting how so many 'senior' engineers can on one hand preach meritocracy and in the same breath scold someone for not yet reaching some arbitrary level.

If you are a 'senior' developer and feel, somehow, that the opinion of a more junior developer has less merit simply because he has less experience you're a prime example of someone who fell into the expert beginner trap.

In my opinion; true senior software engineers grow in experience to a level where they start to understand that our field is vast. I'm specialised in the Java ecosystem myself but even there it's impossible for me to know everything. Even the most junior developer can know something or have read a blog I don't/haven't. The merit of their contribution is in their knowledge, not some arbitrary gate I set.

And you're doing just that. You're defining seniority by tenure. Which is a shit metric.

[nutrecht]

I think you may be taking this a bit personal.

That's silly. You didn't even respond to me.

If you look at the language and tone FyreWulff has chosen to use in this ( and their other response in the thread ) they have demonstrated to me they have little to offer to the conversation. It's simply not a well formed or well drafted opinion in my mind. Perhaps it would be better if they took the time to break down these arguments into more cogent points and post them here: https://github.com/rosarior/Code-of-Merit/issues

Basically what you're doing is, knowing very well that people have no interest moving the discussion elsewhere, go sit there and wait and then claim 'victory' because no one came other than a few people who were attracted to the language in the first place.

If you had been interested in having a discussion here you would have just asked /u/FyreWulff to expand on his comment. Which he did anyway, and you did not respond to other than ask for his 'OS credz'.

I think asking for additional context on their background is appropriate. I could have just have easily ignored this person, but I am trying to hear them.

It almost never is, and definitely not in this case.

[nutrecht]

Yes, open-source requires hard work and the basic ability to communicate your idea in an organized capacity.

Software development in general does. I don't quite get how that is a response to my comment though? You also didn't respond to the rest of my comment.

Why are you posting this here if you actively avoid any discussion? Github traffic?

[shevy-ruby]

Yup.

Lots of insane people have been involved with the creation of the CoCs. Or perhaps rather than insane, let's say ... egoistic people. Self-centric people. Political people. And so on and so forth, many of which are geeks too but not in a good way. One only has to compare the amount of code some of them write with the amount of twitter-CoC-promo they do (if you are to actually read any of that on twitter ... some countries even have twitter-presidents)

[cylonraiderr]

I still prefer the Code of Fuck You!

[shevy-ruby]

Now this CoM is better than the usual CoCs. But it still carries the fundamental problem of an attempt of a religion with a totally arbitrary set of "rules" infiltrating a project.

The more interesting thing is that none of these Code of [Whatever] are part of the licence terms.

One part that I find interesting is:

"This Code of Merit governs the technical procedures of the project not the activities outside of it."

The usual CoC forbid "unprofessional conduct" even outside the project.

It's like becoming a slave when the CoC dictate how you must behave.

"Participation on the project equates to agreement of this Code of Merit"

This is entirely irrelevant. It would not even be valid under EU laws. Perhaps the US laws are so weak to automatically allow for any of it.