SQLite's author is a spiritual guy. There's nothing wrong with him borrowing from spiritual sources to describe his ideal for how he wants the SQLite community to conduct itself.
I'm an atheist - I am unable and unwilling to comply with this CoC. So yes, I would say that I am affected.
Other well known religious folk in the foss world, such as Larry Wall, do not insist on this kind of exclusion.
"those who wish to participate" ... "are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that honors the overarching spirit of the rule, even if they disagree with specific details. Polite and professional discussion is always welcomed, from anyone."
In other words, calm down.
What if someone had a code of conduct that was clearly about people treating each other well...but started it with "First, you must acknowledge that there is no God." Or "First you must acknowledge that Mohammad is God's messenger." Or "First you must accept the mitzvot as binding." Or "Brahman is Truth and Reality."
None of these is promoting inclusion.
That said: I'm an observer here. I haven't chosen to participate or not participate in the SQLite community because of this. I simply think it's a strange place to promote one's religion, and it doesn't surprise me that non-Christians might find it unwelcoming.
In any case, western civ has deep roots in the christian tradition and I don't know any atheists that are so extremely fragile or sensitive that they are "offended" by simply seeing people repeating 1500+ year old fragments of it. Especially when they use the disclaimers that were used here.
If they want to try to be appealing to, say, 7/7ths of the developers out there, they might want to do something different.
I don’t consider myself Christians but I like CoC a lot. It even made me think why I only used sqlite when I had to.
To me the CoC doesn’t say I’m excluded. It says a couple of other things however, that author’s not ashamed of who he is, he’s sincere, and he knows about 1st amendment. I think all of these things are good.
Seriously i can't imagine the uproar and hate if he was a Muslim. Imagine how many tech leads would immediately start figuring out how to completely change their stack and replace sqlite with leveldb.
I see this 'code of conduct' as a literary form of pro-biotics , there to protect against invasion by harmful non-transcendental religions like intersectionality which have the capacity to sow discord and tear communities apart into warring factions. Even though I do not believe in transcendental gods I have no problems accepting the Rule as I see it for what it is, an abstraction of monastic life written to the benefit of medieval monks. I am under no vow of obedience or poverty and I am rarely in a situation where I have to bury the dead so I know I can skip those parts which are not applicable. In truth, I realise I can skip just about everything except the bit which tells me to treat others as I'd like to be treated myself.
 a mixture of safe bacteria which is supposed to colonise the gut to keep the bad ones out
It says 'love God'. It doesn't say 'acknowlege God exists'. The latter may be a prerequisite of the former, but the explicit rules are distinct, and have different flavors.
I think the SQLite's author is just trying to make a statement of "hey, there's us Christians out here, and this is actually what we believe in".
1. Let's just avoid the reality that there are many people who call themselves Christians who don't follow those rules, and do many horrible things. Those people exist in virtually every demographic.
And you are the one to decide what server the Christ.
You cannot say this and believe that this CoC is inclusive then.
Something written, without the explicit goal of being enforced, or expected, whatsoever.
He could have equally written: "We expect those participating in the SQLite project to murder at least three people by Sunday - but if you don't do it, it is fine too"
Ah yes, "is there a god or not" is a specific detail, especially when it's in the context of a whole series of religiously motivated directives. /s
I hardly think that a repudiation of a set of CoC terms that I find directly exclusionary to me counts as warranting "calm down". I won't, thanks!
If the CoC started with "First of all, purge any God from your heart" you wouldn't have thought twice about condemning it.
But no, the atheists should just suck it up.
I think the Golden Rule is a wonderful Code of Conduct and it's how I try to live my life. If only more people followed that rule.
The author had a chance to make his CoC the golden rule. But instead he made a deeply religious statement. He has full right to do what he wants, but to also claim that this is somehow inclusive because you can close your eyes to things incompatible with you is nonsense, sorry.
All religions teach largely the same good things, but you generally won't see their devotees agreeing to any document that proclaims their love for a different God.
And yet atheists are expected to swallow that. No thanks.
By standing up for/against things like CoC as opposed to actual incidents, nothing is really achieved except - I believe the term is bike shedding?
Open source exists so that everyone can contribute their talents to something that benefits everybody. If Joseph Stalin or bin Laden wrote a great patch, I'd want it. We'd all be better for it. We can fight his ideas in a different arena. It doesn't have to be the SQLite mailing list. It is not a sensible place to have these other types of ideological battles.
Here in the third world life is hard. Business ethics are non existent, workplaces are dominated by obsession with job security. If you have to make a life for yourself, you have to do your work. I find perhaps the greatest "white privilege" as it seems to be called in the west, is having the luxury of debating CoCs instead of supporting yourself and your family.
And you will never understand it if you look at "the west" as a single organism. Its millions of people with different opinions. They don't have to be consistent with each other.
CoCs exist to promote desired (usually understood as "professional") communication and collaboration standards in open source projects. People who want to bring their political or religious agenda into those CoCs are indeed largely undesired even in "the west", that's why this particular CoC riled up so much attention.
> Why not just do your work and avoid drama?
I'd love that, and I'm doing that. But I'm not a "turn the other cheek" kind of person, and I'll call out bullshit when I see it. This here is bullshit.
> If Joseph Stalin or bin Laden wrote a great patch, I'd want it. We'd all be better for it.
That theoretical programmer-Bin-Laden would never contribute a patch to a project with SQLite's new CoC because it is incompatible with his faith. You said we would be better off if he did, so by your own logic such a religious CoC is detrimental to us, which is why it is a problem.
> It doesn't have to be the SQLite mailing list. It is not a sensible place to have these other types of ideological battles.
Indeed, it is not a sensible place because SQLite itself is not a sensible place for religion. But its author made it a place for religion, with very predictable consequences.
> Here in the third world life is hard.
> I find perhaps the greatest "white privilege" [...], is having the luxury of debating CoCs instead of supporting yourself and your family.
That's perhaps a bit of an overstatement, and definitely a false dichotomy. Moreover, here you are enjoying the same white privilege in the third world. A bit hypocritical to accuse others of something you yourself are engaging in, don't you think?
It isn't a single organism, this attitude is a very popular one in the west, that's all.
> That theoretical programmer-Bin-Laden would never contribute a patch to a project with SQLite's new CoC because it is incompatible with his faith. You said we would be better off if he did, so by your own logic such a religious CoC is detrimental to us, which is why it is a problem.
Is why I had Stalin in there too. I guess I can add David Duke as well, I'll add as many examples as required for the point to be made, which you have avoided.
> Indeed, it is not a sensible place because SQLite itself is not a sensible place for religion. But its author made it a place for religion, with very predictable consequences.
Many of these sacred cows like diversity, tolerance, political correctness, etc. are all religious ideas. By using religion, the author makes an excellent point, one that is sadly lost on many though.
As for me, I am stating my apathy towards CoCs and the communities behind whichever open source project I need, so no, I am not debating CoCs. Like I said, I would gladly use Joseph Stalin's library for my projects.
David Duke on the other hand would happily contribute to this project. He would never contribute to a project that had a muslim CoC though.
...You demonstrated yet again that religious CoC are not inclusive, which is my point. I feel like you're just trolling at this point.
But how am I to understand the requirement in the Ada Initiative-derived FreeBSD code of conduct? In all seriousness, it demands that contributors do not selectively quote from private communication to give a false impression! Is there a special spirituality behind it, a context that I'm not aware of, or are they just stating the obvious? And who needs to be told the rudiments of human interaction in this form? Best, let's stay away from this morass. If the FreeBSD crowd needs to be told that to function, that's a bad sign.
"The entire rule is good and wholesome, and yet we make no enforcement of the more introspective aspects."
Don't worry! You can still use SQLite as God is infinite in his grace.
The maintainers (and only contributors) implemented a Code of Conduct in line with their community.
> I'm an atheist
Oh wait, it doesn't matter -- they'll be sure to tell you.
"Yes. Clients were encouraging me to have a code of conduct.
(Having a CoC seems to be a trendy thing nowadays.) So I looked around and came up with what you found, submitted the idea to the whole staff, and everybody approved."
> Do not give way to anger.
> Do not nurse a grudge.
> Do not entertain deceit in your heart.
> Do not give a false peace.
> Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself.
> Utter only truth from heart and mouth.
> Do not return evil for evil.
> Be not a grumbler.
> Be not a detractor.
> Hate no one.
> Be not jealous, nor harbor envy.
> Do not love quarreling.
> Shun arrogance.
> Respect your seniors.
> Love your juniors.
> Make peace with your adversary before the sun sets.
Good rules to live by IMO.
> This rule is strict, and none are able to comply perfectly. Grace is readily granted for minor transgressions.
I'm an atheist. And yet, despite the explicit religious tone, I think this is one of the best codes of conduct I've ever seen. I'd love to see someone write the equivalent document using something less religious, like Aurelius's Meditations as the base.
I applaud your good taste in literature.
Although it's not as compact as Sqlite's CoC.
How about just "respect people".
I've literally seen how "respect your seniors" plays out in reality: any idea from new/junior team members is effectively ignored, because they're not 'senior' enough.
diligo: love, distinguish by choosing, regard above others, esteem highly, value, prize. Romantic love is 'amo' in latin (and Italian), St. Benedict is not telling you to get into problems with HR when loving anyone.
Iuniores means just what it says, 'the younger' so 'iuniores diligere' does mean 'love the younger' and as such fits perfectly in whatever 'age silo' doctrine you want Americans to accuse of professing. There is no mention of gender at all, nor do Pence or sex jokes come into play here.
Not serious, of course, if any 'CoC' is needed I'd say "just behave" or "do not do unto others what you wouldn't have done upon yourself" should suffice. Rule #9 in the Rule of St. Benedict already states something similar, now just get rid of the rest and you're done.
I respect my boss, because she's my senior, she is a good leader and a competent dev in her own right. But I don't love her.
But then, so does basic logic. But I mean, we're debating an open source project that has adopted a Code of Conduct, with point one demanding that contributors believe in a superstitious all powerful being.
We're way past fucking logic here aren't we.
Saint Benedict is a saint, last I checked.
> Yeah, that's gonna magically appear on Hacker News within the month. For those curious ...
If you don't care about CoC then don't have one. Don't use this passive aggressive "let me write a thousand word essay to let you know how much I don't care about or have time to deal with CoCs".
>However, if someone tells you you are stupid, or wrong. Stop. Think. Does this have anything to do with your race, region, religion, or anything else not related to this project? This is a tricky one. Have you considered, that they are either having a bad day, are a bad listener, or possibly, you are wrong? If you feel you're not wrong, please, by all means, reply.
If I call somebody stupid in the context of a technical contribution to a project then I'm being unprofessional and out of line. Doesn't mean that I should automatically be executed publicly but I don't see why it should be the person being insulted who should introspect to figure out what I meant exactly.
Oh and if I contribute to your project and you call me stupid I can assure you that I won't reply, I'll get out of here as fast as I can and never return.
The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
a legal notice, here is a blessing:
May you do good and not evil.
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
Do you have so little empathy that you can't possibly image someone adopting The Rule of St. Benedict in good faith (no pun intended)?
Now if you look at it from this point of view I think that you can at least see the irony of using a religious text in this context; to be more clear, quoting their webpage:
> This code of conduct has proven its mettle in thousands of diverse communities for over 1,500 years
Those "thousands of diverse communities" include the ones who were using their religion as a pretext to burn heretics/witches, torture homosexuals and in general oppress the weak and the diverse as well as the ones that today are still trying to infuse young people with their toxic shame when they are non-conforming.
This is what really grinds my gears: some people would do anything to NOT take responsibility and hide themselves behind nice words with little to no real content.
Wow, those Benedictine monks have really been up to some heavy shit.
We don't often talk about the thousands of years of human rights abuses by monastic orders, but they are pretty horrific. Even in America in living memory, it includes the torture and murder of children and the coverup of those crimes: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orph...
However, to reject the Rule of St Benedict because some Benedictines lived in egregious violation of it is like rejecting the United States Bill of Rights because the United States has often acted in direct violation of it.
The Rule is, on the whole, a wonderful document, and there are today and have been through history a great many good people who live it day in and day out fairly faithfully. I'm privileged to call some such people my friends.
To be fair the Benedictine order wasn't one of the worst orders with respct to whole witch/heresy craze but that kinda furthers the irony of the whole situation: watching to the other side while someone is being persecuted (or bullied) puts you closer to the oppressor than to the oppresed.
This would then dismiss every CoC-related effort, because most enforcers do little regarding humans being persecuted in other countries...
Apply your comment to the monks then.
At the same time I do believe that the spirit of Christianity, Islam and most other religions is inherently good, positive and inclusive and there are definitely people that use that as a guide to improve themselves and their lives.
BUT, even if the spirit is good, the actual history says that these organisation shouldn't be held on a moral high ground for anything because they don't deserve it.
Moreover, even today, chances are that if you are a non-conforming individual in a very religious community you are subject to isolation, bullying and shaming.
And that's why I find it of very bad taste to use this as a CoC that should guide integration: if I have been bullied from my ultra-religious community, for example because I am bisexual, then I'll not find that a very welcoming sign.
Religion and Church are not to be blame, since as soon as there is any blame going around, the State, and not religion / church, is responsible!
While I cannot and will not defend everything that has been done in the name of my religion it's kind of disingenuous to discuss this without simultaneously acknowledging that more people have been murdered and tortured with a pretext of reason and lack of religion.
Citation needed. When did the OSB do any of this?
Stop right there. You have no authority over what a person chooses to adopt as a "code of conduct". They can be for whatever purpose they choose. It is up to others to accept them or not.
I think it's more that the wording suggests the author pushing his own faith onto others.
I have seen equal evidence for the existence of a God as I have the existence of a Patriarchy.
Suppose the authors fancied themselves a modern monastic order, is this necessarily bad?
I can imagine someone adopting in good faith a code of conduct that says “no colored people.” That doesn’t mean I’ll be happy about it.
Sure, why not? Group codes of conduct are a form of mutually-enforced morality. Why not pick up a template that seems to have worked in the past and reuse parts of it?
It all won't fit, of course, but why re-invent the wheel? I'm really much more interested in the track record of how various of these items worked out (or not) than I am in impeaching the source. Who cares about that stuff?
Which ignores the very real problem of harassment in tech.
A code of conduct should be nothing more than a set of guidelines which contributors should aspire to meet. It's not a legal text, and it's not a religious text. We are free participants in projects, not unwilling subjects to be disciplined.
We've gone from projects where one was expected to behave properly, and if not would be politely admonished, and maybe kicked out if this continued over a long period, to this, where the CoC is to be used as a blunt instrument to punish transgressors. It's not an improvement, and I dislike the assumptions of bad faith and requirement for punishment. It's unnecessary, and sets the wrong tone.
"To participate in this community, you need to kill three people by Sunday"
Simple. Also, I hope you have nothing against it, since it is not enforceable.
By this same logic, we should reject all scientific research that predates nation state funding.
> First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength.
> Deny oneself in order to follow Christ.
> Prefer nothing more than the love of Christ.
> Put your hope in God.
> Attribute to God, and not to self, whatever good you see in yourself.
> Fear the Day of Judgment.
> Be in dread of hell.
> Know for certain that God sees you everywhere.
> When wrongful thoughts come into your heart, dash them against Christ immediately.
> Devote yourself frequently to prayer.
> Daily in your prayers, with tears and sighs, confess your past sins to God, and amend them for the future.
> Obey in all things the commands of those whom God has placed in authority over you even though they (which God forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord's precept, "Do what they say, but not what they do." (!!!)
> Do not wish to be called holy before one is holy; but first to be holy, that you may be truly so called.
> Fulfill God's commandments daily in your deeds.
> Pray for your enemies in the love of Christ.
> Never despair of God's mercy.
That said, Benedictine monks would not be at or near the top of my list for people who would get all triggered, angry, and go to war over you disagreeing that God exists.
Yes, people fiercely defend what they love and believe. But it's possible to do so graciously and firmly without being angry or freaking out that someone disagrees with you (I am not referring to you specifically, but you, myself, our readers, mankind, etc).
> this will make some people really, really angry
Suggesting that a text written by Christians is a good basis for an OSS project's CoC, when Christianity has a pretty fucking horrific track record when it comes to most of the people who, without Codes of Conduct are pushed out of or never welcome in OSS projects, and you're surprised that people might be angry?
If the religious bits was to be deleted, it would be hard for anyone to disagree.
I see it as no less good or bad than any other code of conduct I've seen. Most of them could be used to throw anyone out of any project, if you chose to do so. The code of conducts for a lot of projects are so selectively enforced that is ridiculous.
Although, religious aspects aside, there are many valuable tenets to be found in there, which will be directly opposed by those who want to get angry about it.
"However, those who wish to participate in the SQLite community, either by commenting on the public mailing lists or by contributing patches or suggestions or in any other way, are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that honors the overarching spirit of the rule, even if they disagree with specific details. Polite and professional discussion is always welcomed, from anyone."
Edit: I am not religious at all.
Hint: there is a clause pointing out that complete adherence is impossible and that the aim is to conduct oneself as much as possible by The Rule.
And, of course, is medieval government actually something to aspire to? Medieval European governments were extremely unstable, collapsed frequently (often due to assassination), rarely went a decade without civil war/armed rebellion, their legal systems were patchy and inconsistent, and almost all of them had laws which separated punishments for commoners and noble-born. The fact that medieval law was influenced by the Benedictine rule seems like a reason to reject it.
Now that they've shown us that they clearly don't care about a code of conduct, I wouldn't trust them to ever handle any actual conduct issues in a reasonable way. Maybe they'd just send me a joke instead.
If you think value-based CoCs are fine, you shouldn't have a problem with this.
* Relieve the poor.
* Clothe the naked.
* Visit the sick.
... those seem like "liberal values" to me, at least on the American spectrum.
Clothing and housing are artefacts of this world, not the kingdom of Christ. Ergo rendering unto Caesar what is caesar’s involves providing clothing and housing to those who do not have it, with the state as proxy and effort multiplier.
Also, whatever the state does, it accomplishes through the threat of violence to collect taxes. For a Christian, the ends are as important as the means.
And lest this seem like a conservative jab - it is not intended in any such manner - I willingly admit that in those times the system worked completely different than it does now in ways that would create a great deal of consternation in both modern liberals AND conservatives.
Very divisive and unfounded IMHO.
In any case, you might have gained some understanding of why other people get upset, when _your_ values are imposed on them.
Let me try:
If I, a european who've only visited the U.S. a handful of times, know more of U.S. politics than you do, I really don't know what to say.
A few years ago I spent some time in their dev mailing list and proposed a patch. I doubt I'd still do this in this context. This code of conduct that requires members to honor th Christ, even as a joke, would make me reluctant to interact with SQLite.
Does it? It says that it requires developers to conduct themselves in a manner that honors the overarching spirit of the rule.
> This code of conduct that requires members to honor Christ
was not true.
About the point where a third developer joined a project.
One person can slag himself all day long and it's just crazy muttering.
Two people can slag each other all day long and it's he said/she said or some combination thereof.
Three people ... dammit, there's a witness.
The text does not permit this interpretation.
> conduct themselves in a manner that honors the overarching spirit of the rule
which is hot air.
Aww here goes my entire social coping strategy.
That being said: this is a stab at Linux CoC? I can see the humour in it but... Seems unprofessonal for a project as SQLite?
Oh dear. That's basically all of us.
But the comments would be waaay different.
69. Love your juniors.
Really? Won't HR get involved?
I will also remind you of three important words: Filos, Eros and Agape.
I have no problem with the people if they are Christian or Jewish or Wiccan or atheist or whatever (although this is independent from if you are good at this computer programming; Knuth is Christian and he is one of the best of the computer programmers in my opinion). Also, I have no problem to use SQLite regardless of the CoC; I still think it is a good software.
Of course, since there's no enforcement mechanism this seems to be just an attempt to get credit with customers without actually caring about the question they were really asking.
We will adopt similar codes from different traditions of the world.
Here, then, is an example of how society falls. Never has any good come out of such things, and for as long as one seeks to dominate, oppress and limit another in any such way, no matter how sweet the words, their meaning will forever remain imprisonment of another.
It is toothless. What are procedures when someone in community breaks rules? There is no board to decide, no email to report, no process to take place. Do I pray to the Lord?
This is pure trolling without merit.
Fuck's sake, people - learn how to explain yourselves in the context of your known readership.
No COC will improve anything. It just might divide contributors without any benefit.
Edit: in all seriousness (in accordance with The Rule), I think open mockery from a serious project is extrodinarily important
Guess I can't use SQLite anymore…
This rule applies to SQLite developers, not to users of the SQLite code. Everyone is free to use the SQLite source code, object code, and/or documentation regardless of their opinion of and adherence to this rule. SQLite has been and continues to be completely free to everyone, without precondition.