1. 12
    SQlite's Code Of Conduct culture sqlite.org
  1.  

  2. 16

    In the famous words of Henry IV:

    A public-domain, small, time-worn, and battle-tested on-disk relational database is well worth a mass.

    1. 24

      Now is the winter of our disk-contents

      1. 1

        I had a good laugh. Thank you, both!

    2. 7

      I’m not sure I understand this.

      I’m not a big user of SQLite anyway, but even with the ‘anyone is free to use it’ statement, I find this to be quite unsettling.

      It says, for instance:

      expected to conduct themselves in a manner that honors the overarching spirit of the rule, even if they disagree with specific details

      It mentions God 9 times and Christ 4 times. The overarching spirit, seems to be Christianity.

      1. 18

        I read this as “We didn’t want to do a Code of Conduct”, but we were told to do so, so we used one that’s unenforcable and entirely unrelated.

        Note (because I see people downvoting this) that I absolutely didn’t submit this because I agree with this CoC.

        1. 3

          I think it may be getting downvoted because lobsters isn’t interested in any kind of CoC

          1. 7

            I won’t speak for others, but I flagged it because:

            • It’s something very few people here (possibly none?) have direct control over.
            • People can make the case that it is harmless satire, earnest belief, amazingly well-crafted trolling given the times, or some blend of the above and it isn’t easy to disprove any of those positions.
            • People are going to get into ugly grumping over it.
            • At the end of the day, sqlite is the bedrock of so many production systems and mobile apps that anybody possibly complaining about it here is still going to be running it in their personal lives despite how much they decry it here.

            The submission thus, in my opinion, is just bait and should be cast out before the lobsters start clacking at each other over it.

          2. 2

            I think somehow that message is lost.

            Point 1 is

            love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength

            If I didn’t already know what sqlite is, but saw that when attempting to say, join a discussion board or ask for help, I’d immediately find an alternative product.

            Also, the original author’s website references an affiliation with an organisation that translates religious scriptures. I’m not convinced the reasoning is as you assume.

            1. 1

              Is the first thing you check when looking into a project the CoC?

              1. 1

                I don’t, but if a project has one presumably they make people aware of it when joining the community resources (e.g. issue tracker, first party discussion boards, mailing lists, etc), otherwise what’s the point.

                If your general point is “people who look for a CoC are the problem”, then I have nothing to discuss with you. I don’t agree with this CoC but I also don’t agree that they are a reaction to imagined or unimportant events.

                1. 1

                  So you wouldn’t expect to see technical or technically relevant things in a CoC either. And every community has its own way it wants to be run, which is also fine, and has nothing to do with the quality of the software.

            2. 1

              This was also my impression. Not quite satire, kind of a code of conduct (in that being a total a**hole will be obviously a breach of the spirit of it), but also pretty beside the point as an actual code.

          3. 15

            Hot take: I love this.

            While it’s clear that DRH is a devout Christian (or an expert satirist), he also takes pains to mention several times that he is not putting this out in order to try to enforce Christian beliefs—or even values—in his community. He also adds, which is quite canny and also unusual, that his expectation is not that failure to comply 100% with the CoC should result in expulsion or blacklisting.

            But he is actually acknowledging: people have adopted Codes of Conduct for the purpose of regulating behavior within contained communities of practice for thousands of years in nearly every culture, at least any culture with any kind of monastic tradition. If we feel the sting of an unregulated community, where toxicity damages the spirits of the people we would like to contribute, why not start there?

            I’m afraid it will fall on deaf ears because many people—on both sides of the CoC debate—have an immediate allergy to any mention of religious practice. I hope they’re given some time to see this code put into practice.

            1. 10

              A large part of this is because organised religion in general, has a pretty fucking horrific history of treating certain groups of people terribly.

              In western society/culture/countries, (some parts of) Christianity has not just a history, but a current-day penchant for treating some of those same groups of people, as shitty as the law will allow them, and trying their damndest to reverse whatever protection laws do provide.

              I’m a straight while male, but I can see plenty of reasons why almost any demographic other than my own would take issue with using Christianity as the basis of a “treat people right” guide.

              Edit to clarify: it’s not just christianity that has treated groups of people like shit, but this CoC is linked heavily to Christianity and Christians do currently treat some of those same groups of people like shit.

              1. 3

                Say the same thing about muslims and you’d be shouted out of the server by hordes of “good” people.

                Christianity is an enormous box containing all from the Swedish (formerly state) church which professes a form of liberation theology where god is gender-neutral and no longer a “lord” as that does not sound inclusive enough to fundamentalist sects who stand next to the road with signs professing all from the end of the earth to “whatever bad happened is your own fault because you allow gay people to be gay people”. The Benedictines have been around for a while, they tend not to do the latter and are far from the former and their Rule is, if clearly religiously tainted, a usable abstraction of the monastic ideal. Software developers as a rule are not medieval monks living in poverty with a vow of obedience which makes parts of the Rule inapplicable but compared to the intersectionalist religious pamphlets which are being used by other projects this one is no worse and in many ways a lot easier on the mind because its religious intentions are so clearly stated (and as such easily ignored by those who prefer to stay away from organised religions). The whole of the thing could be compressed into “do not do unto others what you would not have done upon yourself” which gives room for future abbreviation.

                1. 1

                  As I said elsewhere here and on HN, I don’t see why this CoC or any such agreement needs to be more complex than “respect people”.

                  If someone needs it spelt out more clearly than that, do so, when the need arises.

                  Defining such a specific list of rules (either in this or in other verbose CoC’s), is micromanaging to the ridiculous extreme. If we file a feature request, we don’t preface it with a “how to type” or “basics of $X language” handbook, because we trust that people understand those concepts on their own.

                  1. 6

                    The reason is moderation, the vast majority of the rule of law in any country could be boiled down into “don’t do bad stuff,” but then when it comes to judgement who defines “bad”?

                    Without a CoC or Terms and Conditions by another name; moderation of large communities becomes messy, easily corrupt and non-transparent with different moderators treating people differently based upon personal preference.

                    With a CoC/T&C the moderation team have a set of guidelines that they must follow in their moderation duty, this gives a line in the sand that the community know they should not cross and the moderators know they should apply.

                    For the majority of people that line is pretty obvious without needing to read the CoC, for a select few however, they need “respect people” spelling out.

                2. 4

                  Christianity in particularly

                  Christianity has far from a monopoly on human suffering and shitty behavior. Pretty much any organized system of beliefs or tribe of sufficient population will end up with a history of treating some subset of people terribly.

                  Please don’t be inaccurate.

                  1. 4

                    You’re right. I’ll amend.

                    1. 3

                      Agree. Looking at the people acting offended, it feels that they are largely angry that SQLite didn’t pick their (corporate) religion.

                    2. 1

                      In western society/culture/countries, (some parts of) Christianity has not just a history, but a current-day penchant for treating some of those same groups of people, as shitty as the law will allow them, and trying their damndest to reverse whatever protection laws do provide.

                      But that has nothing to do with Christianity. If those people happened to have a different religion they wouldn’t be different people, they’d just do nasty things for other reasons.

                      Countries where other religions have historically dominated are no different in terms of whether they have abusive practices or whether they have bigotry. And it’s pretty obvious from the wide variety of different types of Christianity practiced in different places, from Sweden to Subsaharan Africa, that the culture and socioeconomic status of people is what determines their behaviour, and religion is just an excuse to be nice or an excuse to be nasty, not the cause of nicety or nastyness.

                      1. -1

                        Edit to clarify: it’s not just christianity that has treated groups of people like shit, but this CoC is linked heavily to Christianity and Christians do currently treat some of those same groups of people like shit.

                        Yes, and so do the intersectional feminists who push for entirely-serious codes of conduct. Publishing this explicitly-Christian CoC, even if the author was sincere about valuing the rules of the Benedictines as a way of ordering human communities, has the satirical effect of making the feminist codes of conduct seem not all that different from the codes of conduct of a competing religious tradition.

                        1. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: I appreciate that you didn't personally insult someone this time, but flaming is also pretty awful.]

                          1. 1

                            A little less ad-hominem would go a long way here. I don’t see anything worth being ashamed of in that comment, nor do I sense the presence of horse shit and believe me, I know horse shit given that there’s a herd of the creatures roaming our farm. Intersectionality and third-wave feminism are doctrines which do have a lot in common with organised religions even though they (mostly) lack transcendental elements.

                            1. 2

                              As I said privately to a mod, the comment I replied to is using “intersectional feminism” as an ad hominem slur, which is garbage.

                              1. 1

                                Woah, let me be clear. I’m not using “intersectional feminism” as a slur. I’m using it in eactly the same sense as the parent post used “Christianity” - namely, as the name of an ideology with political implications, with which I disagree. I think CoCs in software projects were originally a specifically intersectional feminist political project (until people with other political ideologies started creating their own compering CoCs, as the SQLite people are here), and I entirely reject your claim that my naming of “intersectional feminism” as the motivating ideology of CoC-proponents constitutes a slur.

                                1. 3

                                  Then I retract my statement, partially. Your equivalence between the power and influence of social progressives vs. organized religion, particularly modern Western Christianity (which is fairly far away from the theology of Benedict), is still grossly incorrect.

                                  1. 2

                                    “Intersectional feminism” is no more an ideology than “Proust scholarship” is an ideology. If you relax the definition of ideology to the point that it admits those cases, it ceases to be a useful word. Consequently, this post principally serves to demonstrate your downward-punching biases; not a good look.

                                    1. 1

                                      Also, you don’t make a great case for yourself when you say, “I’m just equating it to something commonly regarded in this context as shitty and saying I don’t like it, I’m not using it as a slur.”

                                      1. 1

                                        ““I’m just equating it to something commonly regarded in this context as shitty and saying I don’t like it”

                                        Yes. This is exactly what I am doing. I am deliberately comparing intersectional feminism to Christianity, precisely because Christianity is “commonly regarded in this context as shitty”. No one claimed that the grandparent post’s comments about Christianity or criticizing the satirical SQLite CoC for being explicitly Christian constituted a slur. I don’t think they constitute a slur either. I claim that my comments about intersectional feminism and intersectional feminist-based CoCs are of exactly the same character as the grandparents’ are about Christianity, and are not slurs either.

                                        1. 3

                                          I charitably submit that you’re intentionally obtuse about what “slur” means.

                          2. 8

                            I agree. I think the Rule of St Benedict is interesting, but this is real magic:

                            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.

                          3. 9

                            Anti-code-of-conduct behavior, including this half-troll “it makes a good point” CoC, is punching down, and punching down is never a good look. I wish people had more empathy.

                            1. -1

                              ‘Calling things you don’t like silly made up names (concern trolling, punching down, whatever other silly term you people decide to start using next week) instead of actually giving a good reason why they’re bad.’

                              What’s your word for that? Because you’re doing it, and it’s harmful to good discourse.

                              1. 1

                                Concern trolling and punching down are well-defined phenomena. The latter has a history going back to the beginning of comedy itself. Physician, heal thyself.

                            2. [Comment removed by author]

                              1. 5

                                Open source projects recently are adopting Codes of Conduct to ensure people aren’t marginalised or pushed out because of who they are.

                                This “code of conduct” is essentially a Christian document, and Christianity has a LONG fucking history of marginalising and pushing out pretty much everyone except straight white men.

                                Edit: adjusted wording to make it clearer I’m referring to CoC and their use by OSS projects, not the concept of a CoC in general.

                                1. [Comment removed by author]

                                  1. 2

                                    Sorry, I should have written “Open source projects recently are adopting Codes of Conduct to” not “CoC are designed to”.

                                  2. 1

                                    Religion is a product of its time. Christianity has literally nothing to do with marginalising people. Society has improved, and religion has improved as a result. Religion follows society.

                                    I’m not religious, but it’s ridiculous to suggest that bigotry has anything to do with religion or ever has had anything to do with religion, IMO.

                                2. -5

                                  I think this is the best of the CoCks that have been posted and discussed recently.