I don't normally comment on articles that I don't like, but this is just awful. It diverges so far away from ethics that it's practically someones moral musings

I don't normally comment on articles that I don't like, but this is just awful. It diverges so far away from ethics that it's practically someones moral musings. For instance: > So, for in-house batch jobs, they are started and stopped by operations personnel. Someone also has to explicitly schedule them to run at a frequency. Those people are the ones that ‘operate’ the software and provide it as a service for the users. They are on the hook for it, so they need to be able to control it. I used to be one of these folks. I now write operational software that operates other software, but I was the guy pushing the button. For one, if you're the button pusher you probably know very little about what the code actually does. You're often more familiar with how it behaves on a system, some high level KTLO metrics, and some basic runbooks. To shove all of the responsibility for software outcomes on them is problematic to say the least. Historically, Ops folks are also some of the least paid people in tech, aside from analysts and the position is largely outsourced these days. People like this should not write or participate in ethical codes. Ethical codes are high level frameworks that involve processes for reporting violations, not some rigid structure on how "everything needs to be done this way". They'll provide criteria to abide by that helps readers ensure they are following the system. I work in a lot of highly regulated industries that involve governments; the code for how to treat government workers and adjacency is just that and necessarily that. The reason is that corruption is not black and white, you can't just name off familial relationships and hope you've covered everything. Instead you have to refer to things like undue influence. You also can't just name off "gifts"; for instance, if the company comps something due to a bad experience is that a "gift"? Of course not, but a sufficiently rigorous ethical code would make a world where refunds were controversial. All of these things also come with a responsibility to document your tracks and operate in the clear. The minute you stop operating in the clear you might not be charged with a crime, depending on what a reviewing committee can uncover, but you'll certainly be out of a job. For this, I think something like the IEEE should be building a code of ethics for software. They have the acumen and are industry-aware enough to sort through various contexts and make sure the code is verbose yet light enough to stand the test of time without incurring prohibition style statements like, "let's bring back operators".