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 see no appeals to ESR (just a "for-further-reading" reference). Did we read the same article? And claiming an argument is "built on twitter drama" is a meaningless abstraction.
> 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.
This is a silly and naive argument (unless it's just flat-out dishonest). If you proposed selling ground beef hamburgers at a vegetarian restaurant, would you expect the response from the vegetarians to include a detailed dissection of the proposal? No, it would just note that it involved a proposal to sell meat and thus wasn't appropriate for the restaurant.
There's no agreement that a Code of Conduct is even necessary. Jumping right into debating the details of the CoC means you've skipped over that very crucial argument of whether a code of conduct is even a good idea in the first place, regardless of what is in it, specifically. It's dishonestly narrowing the frame of the discussion to favor the decision desired by the CoC faction.
>it adopts as a premise that any CoC that refers to "safety”, “welcoming” and “respect" must be tool of Twitter oppressors
No it doesn't. It explains its argument for why that is, and provides examples.
Edit: I also knew, when I saw this post had been up for an hour, that it wouldn't make it to hour 2, no matter how many upvotes.
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 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.
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.
Personally, I disagree with your approach to dealing with a toxic community. Having done moderation in various forums/chat rooms & now open source for almost 12 years, that's usually an approach that encourages poor behavior through insufficient action. As to a solution, I don't know what would be the best way to prevent it, but I'm not so naive to suggest there is an easy one-sided path to avoid it.
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 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.
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).
I contribute to open source, I get to use quality open source, and so does anyone else who cares to.
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.
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.
Due to their strong association with the project, core
contributors are always seen as actively representing it.
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.
CoCs are a good thing, but should be something coming from inside the project outwards.