nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqufmlneg8tt9jwvk6p40t02lxhmkns6zlpu4cwrvxerczdnn4syzq4pd73q (nprofile…d73q) φ (nprofile…dgnf) It does in fact make a single useful point; `
a recent study in a Springer volume on open source noted, “there is little to no empirical
evidence” that codes of conduct attract newcomers to projects, and “there is evidence that
the CoC’s presence has no bearing on a newcomer’s joining of a new project compared with
other factors” (Codes of Conduct in OS, 2024). This finding directly challenges the primary
justification offered for CoC adoption, namely that they make projects more inclusive and
welcoming.
The GitHub Open Source Survey of 2017 (n=5,495) and its 2024 follow-up (n=8,452) pro-
vide longitudinal data. Between 2017 and 2024, a period during which CoC adoption accel-
erated dramatically, contributors reported a significant increase in interpersonal challenges,
including threats of violence, impersonation, sustained harassment, stalking, and doxxing.
The behavioral impact shifted: experiencing rudeness, stalking, and name-calling became
more strongly associated with stopping contributions, adopting pseudonyms, and avoiding
communities. Despite (or perhaps because of) mass CoC adoption, the problems CoCs were
supposed to solve worsened.
Li et al. (2021) analyzed 3,824 GitHub issues related to codes of conduct and found that
“oftentimes, the initial addition of a code of conduct does not involve much community par-
ticipation and input”, confirming the intolerant minority mechanism described in Section 3.
The study also documented cases where CoCs were used both proactively (setting norms)
and reactively (governing disputes), with the latter category generating significantly more
community conflict`
This is pretty good evidence that CoC's are tools of proprietary sabotage (who would have thought) and real free software projects don't use proprietary conflict-inducing schemes.
GNU/翠星石
npub1x2…jar98
2026-03-25 11:59:44 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…mhp7
Author Public Key
npub1x2vc8gu0kj2slcujhkd2y684k32e2zhzn78d2quea4tajn9ql2pqqjar98Seen on
wss://relay.ditto.pubPublished at
2026-03-25 11:59:44 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "4a203401d492e24f5b869b03728827bdf5fd1cea65591036fea7ac64771152c1",
"pubkey": "329983a38fb4950fe392bd9aa268f5b455950ae29f8ed50399ed57d94ca0fa82",
"created_at": 1774439984,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"e277f9e5075acb2732da0d5eb7abe6beed38685f0f2b870d86c8f026ce758104",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub"
],
[
"p",
"6ab3886787281e1a448609899a0e0effac5cc60fccd0d81e39eeae0f2854efcc",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub"
],
[
"p",
"d183780b26c261c46404d339c2524481e2abb631caac0058694a12cf6aec60e4",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub"
],
[
"e",
"5ce9ba1961694536619326e34c10d6878b9f10cd11840ef573ad1bf934b9ae51",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://freesoftwareextremist.com/objects/fb10010d-147e-48db-a560-0ef7bedc4b03",
"activitypub"
],
[
"client",
"Mostr",
"31990:6be38f8c63df7dbf84db7ec4a6e6fbbd8d19dca3b980efad18585c46f04b26f9:mostr",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqufmlneg8tt9jwvk6p40t02lxhmkns6zlpu4cwrvxerczdnn4syzq4pd73q nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqd2ecseu89q0p53yxpxye5rswl7k9e3s0engds83ea6hq72z5alxqfydgnf It does in fact make a single useful point; `\na recent study in a Springer volume on open source noted, “there is little to no empirical\nevidence” that codes of conduct attract newcomers to projects, and “there is evidence that\nthe CoC’s presence has no bearing on a newcomer’s joining of a new project compared with\nother factors” (Codes of Conduct in OS, 2024). This finding directly challenges the primary\njustification offered for CoC adoption, namely that they make projects more inclusive and\nwelcoming.\nThe GitHub Open Source Survey of 2017 (n=5,495) and its 2024 follow-up (n=8,452) pro-\nvide longitudinal data. Between 2017 and 2024, a period during which CoC adoption accel-\nerated dramatically, contributors reported a significant increase in interpersonal challenges,\nincluding threats of violence, impersonation, sustained harassment, stalking, and doxxing.\nThe behavioral impact shifted: experiencing rudeness, stalking, and name-calling became\nmore strongly associated with stopping contributions, adopting pseudonyms, and avoiding\ncommunities. Despite (or perhaps because of) mass CoC adoption, the problems CoCs were\nsupposed to solve worsened.\nLi et al. (2021) analyzed 3,824 GitHub issues related to codes of conduct and found that\n“oftentimes, the initial addition of a code of conduct does not involve much community par-\nticipation and input”, confirming the intolerant minority mechanism described in Section 3.\nThe study also documented cases where CoCs were used both proactively (setting norms)\nand reactively (governing disputes), with the latter category generating significantly more\ncommunity conflict`\n\nThis is pretty good evidence that CoC's are tools of proprietary sabotage (who would have thought) and real free software projects don't use proprietary conflict-inducing schemes.",
"sig": "d17af9266b2c366085293ab113bfa8a9bcec83994fcb65b8f4a167488c2af50f1910ef1250e957da78329743cb4b918b048b5b752cd2dc1ca172a87de4749c84"
}