I think a lot of confusion could have been avoided by putting the text of the CoC in a separate box, and for extra effect use a parchment paper background, something like the Papyrus font and write the rules in Ye Olde English.
Right now it looks as if the rules were written specifically for sqlite and only by reading the preface closely is it clear what's what. Wout. On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:01 PM Jonathan Moules < jonathan-li...@lightpear.com> wrote: > I think the big problem with this CoC is that it triggers Poe's Law - > it's impossible to tell if it's serious or a joke without further > context. I know I spent a good 10 minutes trying to decide either way > when I first saw this thread a few days ago; now I know from the below > post that it's serious. > > The consequence of this is that a good chunk of the criticism out there > is because people think it's a joke and treat it accordingly. Some more > clarification in the opening paragraph on the reasoning behind it and > it's non-jokey nature - as below - would probably ameliorate this > component of the CoC's contentiousness. > > > On 2018-10-22 16:29, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 10/22/18, Chris Brody <chris.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Looks like that happened this morning. > >>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18273530 > >> I saw it coming, tried to warn you guys in private. > > There is indeed a reactionary hate mob forming on twitter. But most > > of the thoughtful commentators have been supportive, even if they > > disagree with the particulars of our CoC, They total get that we are > > not being exclusive, but rather setting a standard of behavior for > > participation in the SQLite community. > > > > I have tried to make that point clear in the preface to the CoC, that > > we have no intention of enforcing any particular religious system on > > anybody, and that everyone is welcomed to participate in the community > > regardless of ones religious proclivities. The only requirement is > > that while participating in the SQLite community, your behavior not be > > in direct conflict with time-tested and centuries-old Christian > > ethics. Nobody has to adhere to a particular creed. Merely > > demonstrate professional behavior and all is well. > > > > Many detractors appear to have not read the preface, or if they read > > it, they did not understand it. This might be because I have not > > explained it well. The preface has been revised, months ago, to > > address prior criticism from the twitter crowd. I think the current > > preface is definitely an improvement over what was up at first. But, > > there might be ways of improving it further. Thoughtful suggestions > > are welcomed. > > > > So the question then arises: If strict adherence to the Rule of St. > > Benedict is not required, why even have a CoC? > > > > Several reasons: First, "professional behavior" is ill-defined. What > > is professional to some might be unprofessional to others. The Rule > > attempts to clarify what "professional behavior" means. When I was > > first trying to figure out what CoC to use (under pressure from > > clients) I also considered secular sources, such as Benjamin > > Franklin's 13 virtues (http://www.thirteenvirtues.com/) but ended up > > going with the Instruments of Good Works from St. Benedict's Rule as > > it provide more examples. > > > > Secondly, I view a CoC not so much as a legal code as a statement of > > the values of the core developers. All current committers to SQLite > > approved the CoC before I published it. A single dissent would have > > been sufficient for me to change course. Taking down the current CoC > > would not change our values, it would merely obscure them. Isn't it > > better to be open and honest about who we are? > > > > Thirdly, having a written CoC is increasingly a business requirement. > > (I published the currrent CoC after two separate business requested > > copies of our company CoC. They did not say this was a precondition > > for doing business with them, but there was that implication.) There > > has been an implicit code of conduct for SQLite from the beginning, > > and almost everybody has gotten along with it just fine. Once or > > twice I have had to privately reprove offenders, but those are rare > > exceptions. Publishing the current CoC back in February is merely > > making explicit what has been implicit from the beginning. Nothing > > has really changed. I did not draw attention to the CoC back in > > February because all I really needed then was a hyperlink to send to > > those who were specifically curious. > > > > So then, why not use a more modern CoC? I looked at that too, but > > found the so-called "modern" CoCs to be vapid. They are trendy > > feel-good statements that do not really get to the heart of the matter > > in the way the the ancient Rule does. By way of analogy, I view > > modern CoCs as being like pop music - selling millions of copies today > > and completely forgotten next year. I prefer something more enduring, > > like Mozart. > > > > One final reason for publishing the current CoC is as a preemptive > > move, to prevent some future customer from imposing on us one of those > > modern CoCs that I so dislike. > > > > In summary: The values expressed by the current CoC have been > > unchanged for decades and will not be changing as we move forward. If > > some people are uncomfortable with those values, then I am very sorry > > for them, but that does not change the fact. On the other hand, I am > > open to suggestions on how to express those values in a way that > > modern twitter-ites can better understand, so do not hesitate to speak > > up if you have a plan. > > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
