Open-Source Pioneer Urges Scrapping Conduct Codes

Eric S. Raymond, one of the foundational figures behind the Open Source Initiative, has called for a wholesale rejection of codes of conduct in open-source communities, characterising them as counterproductive. His outspoken position has revived a heated debate over governance, community norms and enforcement in open software ecosystems.

Raymond argues that codes of conduct, designed to promote civil discourse and inclusion, have become tools for disruption and “power plays” by what he terms “shit-stirrers.” He urges developers to refuse adoption of new codes and to eliminate existing ones, or at most replace them with a single principle: “If you are more annoying to work with than your contributions justify, you’ll be ejected.” Raymond maintains that fleshed-out rules merely provide leverage for bad actors to weaponise.

This polemic has already drawn support from other prominent critics. David Heinemeier Hansson, the creator of Ruby on Rails, described strict codes like the Contributor Covenant as Trojan horses that erode autonomy. Their combined critique has gained traction following turmoil in RubyGems governance, which re-energised discussion on the balance between regulation and freedom in project communities.

Supporters of codes of conduct counter that they remain vital for safeguarding underrepresented groups and curbing harassment. Many large open-source projects, including the Linux kernel and Fedora, maintain policies on acceptable behaviour, reporting procedures, and consequences for violations. Proponents assert that without explicit guidelines, vulnerable contributors may be deterred from participating.

A more moderate strand of thought suggests a middle path: adopt lightweight, context-sensitive norms rather than sweeping, detailed codes. Critics of rigid enforcement argue that a one-size-fits-all approach ignores the diversity of projects, sizes and cultures. As one blogger put it, extensive codes often become “weapons turned inward” when used against dissenters rather than as shields against abuse.

Technical researchers are also exploring how to automate conduct enforcement without heavy institutional framework. A 2025 study proposed a bot-based model that helps OSS projects define, monitor, and enforce a Contributor Covenant–style code. The system aims to reduce overhead while maintaining a consistent ethical baseline. The authors acknowledge the difficulty of interpretation and adaptivity, noting that bots can only flag potential violations, not adjudicate nuance.

The emerging schism reflects deeper tensions over authority, community and the evolution of open source governance. For decades, the ethos “show me the code” seated meritocracy and technical contribution as the primary arbiter. As projects scale and diversify, social norms and behavioural expectations have become increasingly salient. Raymond’s position reopens the question of how—or whether—to formalise them.