| a.) They found it off-putting that OpenBSD was "proud" not to have a CoC, in the context of whether they would choose to work with them or to host the website themselves. Consider taking a moment to read the passage in question: https://isopenbsdsecu.re/about/ This idea they were surprised a project succeeded without having a CoC is an artefact of this particular discussion, not something the author ever said or implied. It was in the same category as de Raadt swearing at people over email - they didn't anticipate a productive exchange if they reached out. That's it. If someone declares they reserve the right to treat people however they please, and then you observe them treating people in a way you don't want to be treated, and your conclusion is, "I don't think emailing this person is a good use of my time, I'm just going to host this website myself" - I find it hard to understand how anyone would find that objectionable, that seems simple, common sense, and largely neutral. b.) Whenever you have a large group of people collaborating for an extended period of time, you have incidents. There's drama. There's inappropriate behavior. It's just how it goes. It's a Murphy's Law thing. Eventually people sit down and say, "we've gotta set some ground rules." You probably signed a code of conduct at every school you attended and every job you've accepted. I know I have. You can disagree with that without viewing it as a conspiracy. It's a predictable result of being in a large community, and about as ideological as traffic lights. |