[duskwuff]

> > "If you are more annoying to work with than your contributions justify, you'll be ejected."

I'd argue that this is unreasonable for any project large enough to need a CoC at all. What it amounts to is excusing misconduct by project insiders, while allowing them to drive off new users by declaring their behavior 'annoying'. This isn't a code of conduct at all; it's a formalized "old boys club" dynamic.

[Symbiote]

You are correct, thanks for the explanation.

[mytailorisrich]

An OSS project has de facto owners and an established group of contributors. If they want to "drive off" new users that's their prerogative.

In fact, a CoC is no more than them laying down the law explicitly on how they want people to behave in the project.

"If you are more annoying to work with than your contributions justify, you'll be ejected" is spot-on on how things work in general.

That might lead the project to fail or fork (beauty of OSS) but that's life.

[Sophira]

It also establishes that the project is a meritocracy, which is not necessarily something that every project wants. (And from a personal point of view, many meritocracies seem pretty toxic to me.)

[arevno]

> it's a formalized "old boys club" dynamic

There's a risk that this happens, sure, but it can be more charitably read as allowing/retaining people like Steve Jobs or Linus Torvalds, who, despite being assholes, are effective assholes and usually spew vitriol only in the interests of the product itself.

Weighing annoyance against contributions is a valid methodology. Your concern is valid, as well, so governance should always be introspective enough to ensure that the metrics of "annoying" and "useful" are objective ones and don't grandfather in the insiders.