[mwfunk]

I agree that that's how it ought to be; I strongly disagree that that's how it is. Plenty of people are physically adults; a subset of those people are mentally adults. This is even worse in the world of tech forums and open source projects than it is in the world at large.

FWIW, I have yet to see a code of conduct that really says anything beyond "don't be a jerk, and act like a grownup". It might be silly if it also told me how to dress on Tuesdays and who to vote for, but in reality they rarely or never say anything beyond "don't be a jerk, and act like a grownup." I also have no problem with someone else reminding me of that, because I have to remind myself of that all the time. I don't know why anyone would be offended by such a thing.

[marssaxman]

I suppose that's part of the reason I've had trouble understanding this phenomenon: the couple of "code of conduct" documents I've read have seemed so inoffensively obvious that it is hard to understand why such a document would be necessary, much less why it would be controversial. It alarms me that people care so much about them that merely expressing confusion about the purpose or utility of such a document acts as an invitation for criticism, and it reinforces my perception that these are not my people, arguing about something that doesn't concern me, and I don't want to get involved. I suspect that this is not what the people promoting codes of conduct are actually trying to do. I'm mentioning it in hopes that becoming aware that the harsh moralistic approach is alienating people who might otherwise support their project will help them do a better job, because it sounds like the overall effort is worthwhile.

[mwfunk]

I guess I don't interpret the presence of a code of conduct as an alienating, harsh, moralistic approach to anything. It's about as alienating/harsh/moralistic as a kitten, if the kitten was easily ignored and made of ASCII.

[marssaxman]

It's not the code of conduct document itself which seems harsh and moralistic, but the us-versus-them, tribal-feeling advocacy which accompanies it. The two code-of-conduct documents I have read were so inoffensive I couldn't tell what the point of instituting them was; but right here in this discussion there's a fairly hostile attitude toward people who are not on board with the idea, as though one must either embrace this novel code-of-conduct practice or be labelled a troglodyte. The more I have read today about the purpose of these codes of conduct, the more I like what the people promoting them are trying to do; but I'm still stuck with this feeling that they aren't my people, and don't consider me to be their people, and it's pretty much "do what we say or we think you're an asshole." Which... does not strike me as the most effective way of achieving change. Wouldn't it be more useful to bring people on board by engaging with us and explaining what's going on?

[colemickens]

omg but your oppressive code of conduct may prevent me from harassing or berating someone down the line, so I better act like they stifle speech even though I can't find a single example of them doing so!!111 /s

It really is magical to see these people that think that everyone are supposedly always courteous to each other throw such a shit fit over codifying that into an official policy.