[mytailorisrich]

Everything can be selectively enforced and open to interpretation.

Good questions are: What purpose does a CoC serve? How does it help?

In most, if not all cases, they are not very helpful beyond, indeed, politics and drama because they turn into a weapon (on the assumption that this wasn't the aim all along).

When a CoC is pushed by a company I think it's probably because companies need company policies for employees for HR and legal reasons. I am not convinced they could explain why that must extend beyond that, and really this is an ass-covering exercise in case things get too "raucous" in the project and produces bad PR.

[Symbiote]

> What purpose does a CoC serve? How does it help?

At work I think it has helped since we now have a clear procedure to follow if there's a problem.

Having the Code of Conduct be a public document rather than only an internal one means there are fewer excuses available for not following it — for example someone can't claim they thought it would be OK to ask a developer for sex since we wrote down that that's not OK.

It's also easier to explain in case the problem individual is employed by a paying customer.

[hexage1814]

>someone can't claim they thought it would be OK to ask a developer for sex since we wrote down that that's not OK.

The person who thought this would be okay will not be stopped by a Code of Conduct.

The people who know it's not okay don't need a Code of Conduct.

The whole thing is useless. This is the same retarded shit as people stating their pronouns, trying to engineer every social human relation.

Don't be a jerk with people. If someone looks a certain way, it would be kind to assume they want to be treated in a certain way, etc, etc. You don't need terms of conduct and similar bullshit for that.