Your project needs a code of ethics, not conduct

Recently I've been thinking about moving away from Debian due to… recent circumstances.¹ I'm not one to change their setup often so if I was to choose to learn how to use a new operating system (and it would have to be quite different than what I'm used to²) I'd want it to be a safe pick. Namely, it needs to be something I can reliably expect not to make the same mistakes in the future. So far, my criteria has boiled down to two points:

• The project should have a code of conduct with an enforcement mechanism. In my opinion, if your code of conduct is "just don't be mean" or "don't give us a reason to need a code of conduct," that's essentially synonymous with "abusers will get away with bad behaviour". The project should exclude people who will do harm to the community before they do harm. The remedial step is a backup.
• The project should have a clear policy on LLM usage, ideally on the grounds of ethics.

Unfortunately, there basically isn't a mature operating system that satisfies both these criteria. 9front is probably the closest. It's not entirely clear if 9front has a meaningful code of conduct because everything you can learn about the project online is told only in riddles, but in general I get the impression that the people in the 9front community are safe.

At the same time, I realize these two criteria feel a bit disjointed. I feel that even if I did find a community that satisfied them, there may be something in the future I can't account for. Ideally the second point should flow from the first.

But that's not what a code of conduct is, A code of conduct describes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. What we really need is a code of ethics.

I've been thinking a lot about this one reply in SourceHut's discussion concerning the adoption of a policy that would exclude vibecoded projects, which is worth quoting at length:

I think it would be wonderful if SourceHut would add a code of ethics to its terms and conditions which would blanket ban any projects that [are any matter of unethical]. I say we should stand against non-ethical software, as strongly as we stand against cryptocurrencies and corporate LLMs.

As software developers we're severely lacking on a strong deontology which fights against all of these things, and this leads to countless developers going head first into employment that erodes our online and offline freedoms thinking it's Okay or lying to themselves that "having bills to pay" justifies it.

Back in 2024³ I wrote about how IT should be a regulated profession, with IT professionals being accountable to their employer, the industry as a whole, and the public:

In hindsight, I think this article was inspired by Mac Chaffee's decision to self-attest to the ACM code of conduct:

And I still think we all ought to be forced to take assessments and apply for licenses to build critical digital infrastructure. At least, I think that's what makes the most sense in my own social context. But for the time being, those systems do not exist. As such, if we want accountability, we need to hold ourselves and each other accountable. One way to do this is with project-level codes of conduct, but regulating behaviour doesn't go far enough. We need ethical maxims that inform all the decisions we make. If we start out with the same ethical maxims, then maybe we wouldn't have to have this conversation every few months.

For example, I often like to leave a note in my code repositories rather than a license that describes the relationship between the developer and end user from the perspective of the gift economy. I wrote about it here back in 2023:⁴

One of the "clauses" of this license is "You will not use this gift to hurt people, any living creatures, or the planet". I went through the effort of making this for you, after all, and I think this is a pretty reasonable request. If it makes you uncomfortable that I'm asking this of you, then you probably aren't welcome here.

Imagine if, say, the Debian project had a code of ethics that included a similar clause. In that case, their proposed policy change would have been a non-starter, because it's clearly understood that the ongoing technocapital buildout is done at immense expense to the environment, let alone people. As a benefit, any future decisions that have similar impacts would need to be understood through the same lens. When we lack a clear code of ethics—a "strong deontology"—we open the door to unethical behaviour, and walk straight into becoming a part of the problem.

That's all. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Footer

Respond to this article

If you have thoughts you'd like to share, send me an email!
See here for ways to reach out