[mabynogy]

I can't use something with a CoC.

[durkie]

this seems like it's only relating to people wishing to contribute to prototool. also, it's uber, so it's nice/expected that they would have this sort of thing.

also the code is basically about not being a jerk to other people. seems like a low bar to meet.

[n42]

Why not?

[recursive]

I'm guessing the code disallows their conduct.

[mabynogy]

It's a political tool. It means they are into politics.

[zrail]

Everything involves politics. At least they're being explicit about it.

[mabynogy]

No: physics, maths, cooking...

[zrail]

Oh please. Things involving more than one human invariably involve politics. Academics are just as susceptible as anything else, probably more so.

Cooking, if there is more than one person involved in preparing and eating the food, will involve politics.

[mabynogy]

No. You're mixing social interactions and politics. Politics is about power (who is the boss).

[n42]

How does that impact your usage of the project?

[mabynogy]

I don't want to deal with that. They are able to create problems artificially just to get power over you (on controversial topics).

IMHO people to avoid.

[n42]

From the position of a contributor, I understand and agree with you. You shouldn't contribute to a project whose terms you do not agree with, and I think that the "CoC" movement helps surface the type of organizational policies that a potential first time contributor would want to know before committing to the project.

I am curious to understand how it contributes to your decision not to integrate the tool into your workflow. I don't typically choose products based on the politics of the company that create them, which is the closest analogy I can come up with.

[mabynogy]

I do that for "CoCs" because I find that harmful. It is harmful for everyone and especially for the ones that are claimed to be helped.

My point of view is the one of Morgan Freeman (something like "stop talking about it you make it getting worse").