I always like to see these. A good code of conduct benefits all kinds of people and generally brings awareness to the general level of quality of a project. It also helps to onboard people who genuinely want to participate in a community but who may suffer from a lack of experience.
Even for individuals who strive to live by a high-quality subjective code of ethics, and for whom a code of ethics is a big "why is that even necessary (because I'm already a good person and you already should be, too)"--it's good to get familiar with external standards and learn to engage with them.
There are groups of people for whom a lack of attention to the external/objective/group-shared standard is simply a no-go, and yes, there are people for whom the lack of a shared code is an unfortunate invitation to engage in unappreciated behavior. The "we" is more important than the "I" in many ways, and sometimes the "we" has to put its foot down, and if that seems a bit ridiculous and broad, so be it, but at least it's something.
This particular code seems to embrace an overarching dichotomy, or dimension, from "expected behavior" to "unacceptable behavior." In my experience the Foundation will probably benefit from additional perspectives and even additional dichotomies which deepen and enhance the code over time. It's good to be flexible, prospective, and forward-looking with these kinds of things. Anyway, I'm glad to see it.
Even for individuals who strive to live by a high-quality subjective code of ethics, and for whom a code of ethics is a big "why is that even necessary (because I'm already a good person and you already should be, too)"--it's good to get familiar with external standards and learn to engage with them.
There are groups of people for whom a lack of attention to the external/objective/group-shared standard is simply a no-go, and yes, there are people for whom the lack of a shared code is an unfortunate invitation to engage in unappreciated behavior. The "we" is more important than the "I" in many ways, and sometimes the "we" has to put its foot down, and if that seems a bit ridiculous and broad, so be it, but at least it's something.
This particular code seems to embrace an overarching dichotomy, or dimension, from "expected behavior" to "unacceptable behavior." In my experience the Foundation will probably benefit from additional perspectives and even additional dichotomies which deepen and enhance the code over time. It's good to be flexible, prospective, and forward-looking with these kinds of things. Anyway, I'm glad to see it.
reply