
Programmers debate over whether to behave respectfully - johnhenry
http://www.businessinsider.com/programmers-debate-requirements-to-behave-respectfully-ccoc-2018-5
======
faragon
Programmers, and non programmers. In my opinion, companies only scale with
trust and respect. Also, it is important for people keeping his self-esteem.
Jerks can destroy people without even noticing.

------
dvhh
The title is bad, but the article does bring to the debate.

~~~
collyw
Yes, it implies that if you disagree with the stance then you are being
"disrecpectful".

------
modbait
Not sure how one can imagine that SJW is a "dog-whistle term". Those of us
that use it are pretty clear about what we mean.

------
_m7bj
The existence of this article kind of shows why I don't care for codes of
conduct. It exemplifies the attitude of "you're not obeying my document
entitled 'how to be a good person', so by definition you must be a bad
person", and that's simply not true. It is, however, a repulsive attitude.
Just because you named it that doesn't mean that's what you've written. Let me
break it down:

1\. There's no substitute for not being a horrible person. Good people don't
need codes of conduct, and jerks aren't changed by codes of conduct.

2\. Codes of conduct are a political tool, not a technical one. It is very
hard to define human behavior, which means by their nature codes of conduct
are relatively general and then get interpreted to fit specific cases.

3\. Jerks like politics, because they're a great smokescreen.

Codes of conduct cannot possibly help organizations. No one changes their
behavior to meet a code of conduct. Instead, it becomes a reason to exile
users. That in itself is fine, but unnecessary. Most organizations have either
a formal or defacto leader that can unilaterally excommunicate offensive
members, either with a ban button or simply through social pressure.

When a leader does this, their decision can be questioned. The question
revolves around "did the leader do the right thing for the community?". Once
you introduce a code of conduct, the question becomes "did the leader make a
decision in line with the code of conduct?", and that's a really shitty
question to use as the guiding star for a community.

Once a community is in a position where it's making decisions based on an
arbitrary piece of paper, it's easy for the very people the code is trying to
protect against to use that code to solidify political power. The
interpretations are pushed to be broader, and people start rules-lawyering
their political adversaries with the CoC. This is not a healthy place for a
community to be in. Jerks can no longer be excluded for being unhelpful and
obstructionist, as long as they do it in a way that doesn't violate the CoC.
Codifying your community behind a CoC reduces your flexibility because it
gives people ammunition to argue against the statement "you're being horrible
and we don't want you, goodbye".

I've seen this cause the ultimate heat-death of multiple formerly delightful
internet communities. The pillars of the community get slowly weeded out
because they refuse to bow down to the precise wording of the almighty CoC,
the nazi moderators set in, the baseload members migrate to wherever the
pillars went, and the community withers.

I've done it before and I'm bored of the cycle. I'll happily work with a team
of enthusiastic people run by a benevolent dictator for life who isn't afraid
to convo me and tell me I'm being a wanker. Tell me I've got to abide by the
37 point grand thesis to not triggering people and I'm out.

