1. 2
  1.  

  2. 2

    The recommended code of conduct is so dry I had to use eye drops.

    https://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/

    1. 2

      It’s odd that technical competency or utility isn’t one of the pillars.

      For example, suckless and OpenBSD both have a reputation as perhaps less-than-welcoming–and by the pillars in this document, they’d be “unhealthy”. Are they though?

      Are there good examples of open-source projects that are very healthy by these standards but which are technologically stagnant or irrelevant?

      1. 2

        suckless and OpenBSD both have a reputation…

        They also have a reputation for valuing non-code contributions (the docs reputedly excellent).

        Are there good examples of open-source projects that are very healthy by these standards but which are technologically stagnant or irrelevant?

        It’s hard to find examples of irrelevant software because nobody has a reason to publicize it.

        Finding widely-used open source projects which have poor code quality is hardly difficult, but I do hate to crap on the hard work of volunteers. That said, a cursory browse of openssl-dev left me with the impression they would probably meet the standards.

      2. 1

        heh, the domain is crate.io and the article mentions Rust