[falcolas]

I highly recommend also reading the "stick" part of the CoC - the reporting guide.

A person who broke the CoC by snickering at the repeated use of the word dongle; unless a permanent ban is the result, the accused can not appeal any remedial actions taken against them. They are not even guaranteed to offer their side of the story in the investigation.

This CoC, like most, puts the power entirely in the hands of the accuser; it is very much the open source equivalent of a "binding arbitration" clause.

[foldr]

I don't follow your comment. The reporting guide doesn't say anything about people snickering at 'dongle', and neither does the post we're commenting on. I also don't see anything in the CoC that suggests that snickering at 'dongle' would constitute a violation.

[falcolas]

There is a well documented precedent for this exact behavior being considered to be sexual harassment and having negative effects on the accused' professional life.

> reporting guide doesn't say anything

That's part of the problem: explicit behaviors are not called out, only the effect they have on the accuser matters.

[foldr]

>There is a well documented precedent for this exact behavior being considered to be sexual harassment

By which you mean there's exactly one instance of it having happened in a completely different community (a Python conference) with a different CoC?