Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamgordonbell | Hacker News Reader

I don't like how the 'manifesto' presents SQLite's code of ethics as nefarious:

    We take our code of conduct seriously, and unlike SQLite, we do not substitute it with an unclear alternative. We strive to foster a community that values diversity, equity, and inclusion. We encourage others to speak up if they feel uncomfortable.

It seems in bad faith to imply that SQLite is some sort of toxic, anti-diversity space. It's not. it's just a closed-to-contributions open source project. Richard is pretty friendly guy and I'm not certain if efforts have been made to reach out to him here.

https://github.com/libsql/libsql/blob/main/README.md

View on HN

One of the things I think is really innovative [1] about SQLite's code of conduct is that it's a one-way covenant. The developers are agreeing to act and engage with the community in a certain way without expecting anything in return or enforcing any of their beliefs on others. The rules are also very clearly defined, even the ones I personally don't agree with.

I think the new "Contributor Covenant" is a step backwards. It's pages and pages of text to say "don't be a jerk", and the rules are so poorly defined that it isn't much more precise than a one liner saying "don't be a jerk". There's lots of catch-alls like "... And any other unprofessional behavior is against the rules". You could stretch this to cover almost anything. Hell, I've worked in professional settings where wearing shorts was verboten, but I don't think open source projects should be policing how participants dress except in the most extreme circumstances (like if someone shows up to a convention naked when it isn't pre-planned as being a naturist event)

I find it confounding that the the new covenant is described as being less vague when it relies on poorly defined terms like "community spaces" and "community leaders". What's a community space? Who are the community leaders? Idk, but I've seen a handful of cases these covenants have been weaponized against developers expressing their personal opinions in a context that has nothing to do with Github.

[1]: I know calling it innovative is a bit ironic when most of it was written 1500 years ago, but it's innovative compared to other software projects.

(Edited for grammar and to flesh out why I think the new covenant is vaguer despite the author's claim, unlike the old one with well-defined rules)

These days, I find myself feeling far more comfortable and trusting when a software community doesn't have a "code of conduct", and when it doesn't have a "moderation team" or "community leader enforcement".

Censorship, or even just the threat of censorship, causes far greater harm to a software community than a small number of thin-skinned people getting "offended" every now and then, usually over trivial and irrelevant matters.

> Censorship, or even just the threat of censorship, causes far greater harm to a software community than a small number of thin-skinned people getting "offended" every now and then, usually over trivial and irrelevant matters.

Projects that do not promise to at least enforce a basic level of civility however lose a potential coder base as well, and that is people who are not "mainstream" and have to fight for survival (all too often literally, even in Western countries) in the meatspace already all day: women, gender-queer, people of color, people of non-Christian religions... last thing they want is toxic gamer bro culture seeping into spaces where they are active.

Anecdata, but anyway: I've been on HN for a few years now and very often the lead developers for extremely complex and interesting stuff, particularly reverse engineering, fall under that umbrella somehow. The "free market" shows just exactly where the highest talent classes are, and it's not the whiners whining about CoCs preventing them from spamming "I identify as an Apache helicopter" memes.

> and unlike SQLite, we do not substitute it with an unclear alternative

This portion of the statement is harsh, and I think the project could do better by stating what they are doing and why, rather than focusing on what SQLite is doing and why it is bad.

I would say that it seems feasible (to me) that SQLite's "Code Of Ethics" works for a small team, open-source, closed-contribution model but wouldn't work for the open-contribution model that libSQL is trying to achieve.

This is probably refering the SQLite Code of Ethics debacle.

SQLite has a Code of Ethics, which is used for ticking a box when working with some of their clients (meaning: they probably don't take it very seriously). For this code of ethics, they chose to use the christian Rule of St. Benedict[0].

When it was implemented, it ruffled some feathers in a fairly major way. While it's true that SQLite is closed to code contributions, they do still accept discussions on their forums, among other things. Those interactions would, supposedly, be bound to the CoC. The sqlite devs later cleared up that it was there for client compliance reasons, but the damage was done.

I don't think this line is in bad faith. It's basically spelled out on their code of ethics page that they basically don't care too much about it and is mostly there for ticking boxes.

[0]: https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html

> This document continues to be used for its original purpose - providing a reference to fill in the "code of conduct" box on supplier registration forms.

It seems somewhat deceitful to use this list to check those boxes, which makes this entire page self-contradictory (specific points highlighted):

> 24. Do not entertain deceit in your heart.

> 28. Utter only truth from heart and mouth.

> 39. Be not a grumbler.

Where's the deceit? The page is incredibly honest about it, any client which cares will immediately see the purpose of the document.

It's working around bureaucracy. Nothing more, nothing less. Given SQLite's position, that's incredibly understandable.

Working around bureaucracy is still deceit. The spirit of the ethics they state here would suggest a good faith effort to put together a true code of conduct, however basic.

The ethics that Christianity teach don't have a backdoor because it's big corporate.

>The ethics that Christianity teach don't have a backdoor because it's big corporate.

Did you not read what Jesus did to the moneychangers in the temple?

Working around bureaucracy is not deceit. At least according to my understanding of the word, "deceit" requires that someone is lead to believe falsehoods. That's not going on here. SQLite has a code of ethics, and if that's all that's required by some bureaucratic process, then that's fair game. If the process requires enforcement of the code of ethics, SQLite should probably not tick the box, and the document puts that information front and centre.

I mean that's still deceitful. I get that they don't like codes of conduct, but I can still find it amusing that they violate their own code of ethics on the same page they wrote them on.

At this point your argument is a classic straw man:

Define what the opponent means or believes and then put that definition up to tear it down.

Simply stating a fallacy does not make it one.

I pointed out in detail how it matches the fallacy.

Next up: The first step to get out of a whole you have dug yourself into is to stop digging and all that.

> I pointed out in detail how it matches the fallacy.

I'm sorry, you did nothing of the kind. The only thing that appears to have happened here, as far as I can tell, is your definition of a strawman, and a cherry-picking, uncharitable read of one of my comments.

> Next up: The first step to get out of a whole you have dug yourself into is to stop digging and all that.

This hostility doesn't feel like the start of a productive conversation, so I'll bid you a good day and stop here.

As far as I can see, you're wrong: my position is that the CoE is not deceitful, /u/mmastrac's position is that the CoE is deceitful (and that it's ironic or whatever because the CoE says not to be deceitful). As far as I can see, this is just a good old disagreement where both parties understand and respond to each other's positions.

I don't think I agree with the other commenter that your argument is a straw man. I think we use different definitions of deceit though. I don't think anyone is being mislead, which in my mind is enough to make it not deceitful; if you operate with a different definition, that's okay.

I think that's fair - we seem to have a different view of the same situation, which I can respect.

In your view, christian ethics don't allow jokes, which is a bit extreme given that many very serious Christian theologians are also quite entertaining and have been so historically as well.

> The ethics that Christianity teach

What "ethics"? And as a precondition, what "christianity"?

Neither are unitary nor singular, and further irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Jesus himself was extremely pragmatic in some cases: Give to the Caesar what belongs to the Caesar and all that.

People who don't practice should probably study the Bible a whole lot more before telling practicing Christians what to do or not.

> Give to the Caesar what belongs to the Caesar and all that.

Everyone always leaves out the "render unto God that which is God's". That second part (not to mention the preceding context) changes the whole meaning of the verse.

Of course we should not forget that. Thanks!

The fact that their Code of Ethics is a joke does not imply that the project is in some way toxic.

Most developers don't need a Code of Conduct to tell them how to behave because they're not 10 years old.

OP here, and I don't think SQLite is toxic.

The libSQL announcement implies that you find the SQLite CoC toxic.

The article said libSQL would have a clear code of conduct. README.md stated their goals and said SQLite's code of ethics was unclear. Was there another announcement?

This code of conduct is there to prime the foundation for the takeover of by outsiders. With for profit companies, they can just buy the company. For non-profits, outsiders takeover by instituting DEI and then find something that they can make a big deal out of, or outright lie to get the founders kicked out and take over the organization.

Sqlite works. I strongly suggest other projects adopting their code of conduct. Seems to deliver awesome results.

> It seems in bad faith to imply that SQLite is some sort of toxic, anti-diversity space.

They said SQLite's code of ethics is unclear. You inferred any other criticism.

it's not nefarious, it's just a different approach to things. I think Hipp is justified in all he is doing, and I don't think he is necessarily wrong. We just see things differently

Fair enough, It could be read that way.

I get frustrated that the code of ethics gets so much attention of sqlite, in a bike shed type of way.

But by mentioning that, I think I've drawn even more attention to it. My bad.

A code of conduct that covers all the bases of the gold standard for such things, the Contributor Covenant -- including explicitly promoting DEI, protecting everyone but especially members of marginalized communities from harassment, and delineating explicit enforcement procedures and committees -- is table stakes for an open source project today. Not having one presents compliance issues for companies who otherwise might adopt your project.

> including explicitly promoting DEI

> Not having one presents compliance issues for companies who otherwise might adopt your project.

Insisting that people adhere to your ideology through “compliance” sounds very totalitarian.

It really doesn't.

No-one is insisting on anything, really. "If you'd like us to adopt your technology, do X" gives both parties a choice in the matter and total freedom to walk away.

1. It's creepy that corporations are having expectations about how volunteer effort to create code that they use for free runs itself (or claims to run itself). It's generally not even being made for the corporations that are using it - the software is made for everyone to use (and fork) as they see fit.

2. These corporations are not engaging in this behavior spontaneously. They are responding to a legal regime which is increasingly becoming totalitarian.

To be fair this was corporations that actually pay for development of SQLite via the SQLite Consortium.

That is fair. It's still creepy - especially given that the project is not open to contributions, and has not (to my knowledge) had any issues with the broader "community" related to the things covered in a code of conduct.

D. Richard Hipp handled the situation pretty well in that he got what he wanted and the consortium members didn't get what they wanted.

How so? Did he not end up adopting a more standard CoC? I thought he had, but a brief search suggests I may be wrong.

If so, then I agree with you that he handled it well.

He adopted a prayer as the CoC.

Oh, it looks like he had adopted the Mozilla CoC, but has since removed that. https://sqlite.org/codeofconduct.html

I am familiar with the Code of Ethics

Specially when demanded by entitled companies that want the work of FLOSS developers for free. And, curiously, these are usually the same companies that cry about (L|A)?GPL.

In the case of SQLite it was insisted by paying members of the SQLite Consortium.

You do realize that SQLite adopted it's current coc for exactly this reason, right? That's what's meant by compliance, there are some situations where adopting oss code requires specific licenses and compatible-ish coc's to avoid issues with required harassment training and dei. Some auditor will ask for "proof" and the coc is what you can send them. And it's done virally like this because otherwise it would be trivial to bypass by simply having a subcontractor.

You think workplaces make people watch those cringy videos for fun?

It does not seem to be preventing adoption of SQLite anywhere.

People should have codes of conduct if they believe in them (I do) and find they're necessary in the circumstances they're working in (I have not yet).

People should stop going around proclaiming that pro-forma codes of conduct are a basic necessity for every project; all that does is exacerbate the drama around codes of conduct --- which are perfectly useful and often necessary for huge projects, and which don't at all need to be the topic of 500-post message board threads about freedom.

If I was in a situation where I had to have a code of conduct for the people involved, it would have to be:

1. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. 2. Don't be a dick.

An open source project's license is the only thing 99% of corporations care about when deciding whether or not to use some open source project.

And for me in my personal coding, lack of a code of conduct is a positive to me.

> A code of conduct that covers all the bases of the gold standard for such things, the Contributor Covenant

It's amazing to me the hubris of people who believe that a set of community guidelines that are less than a decade old are superior to a set of community guidelines that have successfully guided a set of communities for more than 1000 years.

Is this really true though? In the projects I've seen this Covenant pushed heavily, it just seems to be a way to distract from building the product, to instead spend valuable contributor time debating identity politics.

There's a time and place for this sort of thing (e.g. Twitter); open source projects are typically not an appropriate venue.

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

"Contributor Covenant was created by Coraline Ada Ehmke", ah yeah that one

Reply on news.ycombinator.com