This is a an argument built on appeals both to Eric S. Raymond and the last several years of Twitter/Tumblr drama. It doesn't even discuss the CoC; instead, it adopts as a premise that any CoC that refers to "safety”, “welcoming” and “respect" must be tool of Twitter oppressors.

There are valid arguments against widespread adoption of CoCs (for instance: they can end up as window dressing). But this isn't an example of one.

I think there should not be any Code of Conduct in OSS projects. I like the BDFL model more. If the BDFL does not like what you do, you are out of luck. Join or create a fork. If what the BDFL likes does not resonate, nobody will contribute and the project will die.

I think hacking was never about politics through words. Sure hackers might had or have an agenda, but their weapon is programming not writing. I have nothing against political activists who use writing as their tool of choice, but there are plenty of groups you can join and do that. For me it makes no sense to mix the two concepts together and scare away actual hackers who just want to write code.

If you do not like the community, fork it. That is was everybody does for technical or political reasons, why should there be written rules for stuff most people like to do as a hobby in their free time?

This post seems to be complaining about oppression, but doesn't seem to address the opposite end, oppressive attitudes/terminology used to intimidate those advocating for social equality. It offers no pathway to making the situation better.

This sort of discussion seems to go in an endless loop since one side wants to advocate for equality & try to use as many tools as possible to that end, while the other side does not seem to like the heavyhandedness & prefer to maintain the status quo as a reactionary measure, which does nothing to fix this disconnect or the fundamental issues.

It would be more productive to acknowledge the problems that plague others wanting to enter the ecosystem, and try to do things about it than to complain that one side is acting in an undesired manner - the status quo is already undesired as it is.

(This story became flagged between the time I finished this comment and the time I submitted it. I used "vouch" to unflag so I could post the comment anyway, then "unvouch" to undo my vouch. While it was vouched, it got upvotes and this comment got upvotes, leading me to believe that there is interest in discussing this, but I'll leave it to others to make that decision)

The proposed code of conduct is terrible, because of this unclear section:

   This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces
   and in public spaces when an individual is representing
   the project or its community.

What is a "public space" and what counts as "representing the project or its community"?

For example, suppose Alice [1] is a core contributor to PHP and they adopt this code of conduct as written. On her Facebook public biographical information she proudly lists her PHP affiliation.

She also mentions her hobby of writing adult-oriented Harry Potter fan fiction, and links to her stories at fanfiction.net. These stories are full of sexualized language and imagery. Her author page at fanfiction.net also cites her PHP affiliation.

Is Facebook a "public space"? Is fanfiction.net a "public space"? Is listing her PHP affiliation on those sties count as "representing the project or its community"?

This is not just a theoretical issue. The author of that code of conduct submitted an issue to a project on Github that was not using a code of conduct trying to convince them to remove someone who tweeted something she thought was transphobic, on the grounds that he mentioned the project in his Twitter profile and so his statements reflect on the project [2].

[1] I'm using Alice as a generic name here. If there are any people named Alice who are PHP contributors, this is not a reference to them.

[2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

PS: Swift is using the same code of conduct. I sent them an email asking how they interpret these things, and their response was:

   We want to clarify with you that “representing the project
   or its community” in the context of “public spaces” refers
   to behavior at Swift-oriented events, and not to individual
   social/online profiles or unrelated interests.

PPS: The author of this code of conduct has stated that version 1.4 will expand that unclear section by adding:

   Due to their strong association with the project, core 
   contributors are always seen as actively representing it.

See https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/issues/1...

The fact the creator of this CoC started out by personally going to projects and calling them out for not having a CoC then trying to sell them on their own CoC should be reason enough to roll your own instead of forking Contributor Covenant and letting them get fame and speaking dosh from harassing maintainers into using their project.

CoCs are a good thing, but should be something coming from inside the project outwards.

I've never read the Rosario github thread before, but it seems fairly obvious to me that this is a troll - or at least, I'm uncertain enough about its legitimacy to not use it as a prime example of SJWs threatening open source contributors.

This post directly targets an individual in the PHP community and not the CoC in question. I'd suggest renaming this post as misguidance, irregardless of which side it is from, isn't addressing the point.

The problem is that these CoCs are being pushed on open source projects not because there is or was a problem with that project, but simply to push the politics of the CoC authors.

Was there actual bad behavior going on in the PHP project that prompted the CoC to be submitted? In the case of Opal, there wasn't. One of the core contributors said something on his personal Twitter that offended someone, then people came into the project with CoCs demanding his head.

Anyone can fork a project. That's how you deal with a toxic community, not strong arm yourself into a position to judge and oust existing community members and use the media to shame those that oppose you.

>> "...one side wants to advocate for equality..."

The core premise of the linked article is that "equality" is merely a smokescreen used by one side to mask more nefarious objectives.[0]

[0] Note that I am not making any claims about the truth or falsehood of that premise, but rather am making a descriptive statement about the article's contents.

I'm no expert on the topic, but bemoaning the death of nuance and the invasion of identity politics doesn't automatically count as an attempt to maintain the status quo. It's just a rejection of a specific solution and/or the methods such a solution calls for.

For all the talk about an endless loop, your post doesn't seem to escape the very loop you bemoan.

I don't think the framing you present is helpful. Your post assumes all disagreement with the means is from people who disagree with the ends (are "reactionary"). Acknowledging that some may agree with ends but not means is the easiest way to start the process of breaking the loop and moving to meaningful conversation.

What are the problems that plague others wanting to enter the ecosystem? Assuming you mean some form of discrimination, I can't imagine an open source maintainer rejecting patches due to someone's race, sexuality, etc.

In industry, the only somewhat legit barrier I have heard is the influx of brogrammers, but that's mainly annoying, and it affects anyone who doesn't mix with frathouse culture (i.e. nearly all good programmers).

How is the status quo undesired?

I contribute to open source, I get to use quality open source, and so does anyone else who cares to.

What's vouch? The opposite to flag? Available to hand-picked users or is that based on another karma level?

It's always fascinating to learn about mechanisms I've never even heard about, either by such comments or by dang's mails telling you to do X.