The part where they have to write a CoC to please some groups, and disregard a thing called "common sense" which always existed inside the community. Thus making this a joke.
I'm not sure why it matters how long we've been using FreeBSD, but I've been using FreeBSD off and on since roughly 2.1.
You may be shocked to learn that some people actually do not have common sense. And that there is very little recourse when those people - the ones lacking common sense - decide to harass or intimidate people. Unless you actually _make rules_ about your community, you cannot _enforce those rules_.
So there are no "common sense" solutions to these problems unless you actually spell them out in advance. As an open source maintainer myself, I assure you that we do not do these things "to please some groups" but to have a framework for operating when people who lack "common sense" decide to be jerks and harass or intimidate other members of our community.
You're like the Federalists who think we shouldn't have had to put down a Bill of Rights in the United States, because "obviously" any right not granted to the government is the right of the people.
Just like "Warning: Object is hot" seems stupid on an iron, it may seem silly that we have to say "Don't be racist; don't troll; don't pick on someone because of their attributes or beliefs; just be nice" but there it is.
I'll eat my hat if you have used FreeBSD as a daily driver for the past 15 years, and are going to uninstall it and re-architect your homelab or business because of this CoC. "I've dabbled in FreeBSD occasionally but have lost interest" is a different statement.
Ignoring the text of the rules, which are mostly an elaboration on "don't be an asshole", there is also a very important piece -- that there is a reporting and response procedure. In many groups, where there hasn't been a need for this function, when the need arises, nobody knows what to do, and the issue tends to get rapidly worse while people figure out how to handle it.
Lamenting the need to write down common-sense rules may be reasonable. But if you truly value meritocracy, as those who dislike codes of conduct often do, then it would make more sense to keep using the OS as long as you are happy with the software itself, while arguing against the CoC.
This "pleases the group" that experiences harassment. Are you in favor of harassment? Or against protecting those who experience it?
If that's not a problem for you, and if your "common sense" makes you a nice person, these rules don't affect you in any way. However, my "common sense," which you don't seem to share, tells me that communities with explicit anti-harassment guidelines do better in creating a positive, smart, collaborative environment.
For example, on HN we rely on explicit guidelines for polite conversation and not on some implicit sense of common sense. Without those guidelines the conversation devolves into well... harassment, name calling, trolling etc. (See any unmoderated forum on Reddit).
You may be shocked to learn that some people actually do not have common sense. And that there is very little recourse when those people - the ones lacking common sense - decide to harass or intimidate people. Unless you actually _make rules_ about your community, you cannot _enforce those rules_.
So there are no "common sense" solutions to these problems unless you actually spell them out in advance. As an open source maintainer myself, I assure you that we do not do these things "to please some groups" but to have a framework for operating when people who lack "common sense" decide to be jerks and harass or intimidate other members of our community.