[falcolas]

If you have to rely on a CoC to get your contributors to not "be jerks" and "be professional", you have other issues with your community which really need to be addressed first.

No CoC is ever going to stop a jerk from being a jerk. It will just prompt the jerks to work around it and cause even more headaches for the contributors. Worse, it brings about those who only want to criticize the CoC, either because it's too strict, or too lenient.

Taking the time to address critiques on a CoC is time taken away from actually developing on a project and building a community who cares about the project, not the CoC.

[sanswork]

>No CoC is ever going to stop a jerk from being a jerk.

Right but it will remove the jerks from the community.

>It will just prompt the jerks to work around it and cause even more headaches for the contributors.

How do you imagine this happening?

>Taking the time to address critiques on a CoC is time taken away from actually developing on a project and building a community who cares about the project, not the CoC.

Spending time complaining about a set of guidelines that say don't be a jerk is time taken away from actually developing on a project. Except the people doing it are complaining about not being allowed to be jerks.

[falcolas]

> Right but it will remove the jerks from the community.

How, exactly? The CoC does nothing but codify someone's values for a community. It doesn't actually do anything, other than state a set of unacceptable behaviors and potential solutions to those behaviors. It's still up to the contributors to actually act, and if your community is good in the first place, they won't need the prompting of a CoC to act against jerks.

> How do you imagine this happening?

Easily - a CoC leaves a lot of grey areas, which provide plenty of room for griefing and harassment which isn't technically against the CoC. And if an action falls within that grey area, someone, or several someones, has to take time and not just say "this is bad", they have to tie that judgement back into the CoC somehow. It's even worse when there are consequences in the CoC for "lack of enforcement of the CoC" - being perceived as doing nothing can remove someone as a contributor. It's worth remembering, we're (mostly) developers, not lawyers.

> Except the people doing it are complaining about not being allowed to be jerks.

Are most of the people in this thread of comments complaining about not being able to harass or abuse other people? Or are they raising concerns about the ambiguous nature of these CoCs, and the perceived unnecessity? More specifically, how much time did Matz have to take out of his development schedule just to address the complaints against Ruby's CoC?

[sanswork]

>How, exactly?

By giving members of the community a place to point to which explains why exactly they are excluding someone and a set of reasons why they will exclude others in the future.

>Easily - a CoC leaves a lot of grey areas, which provide plenty of room for griefing and harassment which isn't technically against the CoC.

Like what? Saying it could happen then when asked for examples replying with "it could happen" isn't exactly convincing for it being possible.

>Are most of the people in this thread of comments complaining about not being able to harass or abuse other people?

Well I see a few complaining that they don't feel comfortable in a space where one exists so for those people it probably is though I doubt they'd use those words to explain their actions. I see others complaining about their existence but not really providing any arguments against them other than "they aren't needed" or "they don't work".

I mean your whole argument here is that it should just happen as the CoC outlines. But history isn't on your side as open source in general has been historically full of harassment both sexual and non-sexual and various levels of abuse. To the point that it's actually celebrated from some of the bigger names in the space.

[ciupicri]

> Right but it will remove the jerks from the community.

As if the maintainers/leaders can't remove someone from the community if they wish to, without the need of codes.

P.S. By the way, the Rust Code of Conduct [1] states:

> Remarks that moderators find inappropriate, whether listed in the code of conduct or not, are also not allowed.

[1]: https://www.rust-lang.org/en-US/conduct.html

[sanswork]

They can but it is a lot easier to remove someone from the community when you can point to actual rules of the community they've broken besides just "we don't like you".

I honestly can't see peoples objections to CoC. If as you say it doesn't actually change anything why do you object?

[ciupicri]

Because you have to waste time reading it, and because they tend to force people to sugarcoat everything they say so that someone doesn't get "triggered" [1]. They also encourage SJWs (social justice warriors) to waste other people's time with various crap, for example the Node.js pronoun scandal [2].

[1]: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Trigger_warning

[2]: https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun

[sanswork]

This response explains everything about your stance. Thank you.