[chunkyfunky]

Agree that these are table stakes, and I speak as someone whose day job is managing a team that works on a fairly large open source project which is bound by the Linux Foundation CoC. And yes you are right, it is all about the money at the end of the day.

But here's the thing; if one of my devs made a gaffe at a conference, they'd have the full weight of myself and the company defending them, they definitely would not find themselves alone facing some kangaroo court that answers only to itself :)

[ghaff]

Personally I'm skeptical about them. People who behave badly will behave badly. People who don't generally won't. The drumbeat of CoCs may make some difference at the margins but I'm skeptical. In any case, as you suggest, a refusal to have a CoC is itself a political statement that sends the message that you don't believe in good behavior and is pretty much a non-starter for that reason.

In general, they're well meant. And in my experience issues arise not so much from the conference organizers but some attendee taking offence over something in a way that most would consider hypersensitive. And the organizers feeling they have to take their side even if they personally disagree.

[geodel]

> But here's the thing; if one of my devs made a gaffe at a conference, they'd have the full weight of myself and the company defending them...

Maybe you are right. But this seems very surprising, the company instinct would likely be to cut loses and have that person fired to avoid further bad publicity.