[A_D_E_P_T]

> Let's restate your points a bit, but using the words "ethics" rather than CoC. Is publishing an ethical standpoint a "trouble making"?

Most software projects are ethically neutral and don't need a "standpoint." In tech, those "ethical standpoints" are often tacked-on by people who want to use them as a tool to exercise social control over other contributors, including project founders and visionaries. (There tends to be, in any given Western organization over n people in size, a clique that's really into this.)

I have no idea how CoCs are used in PETA, but obviously groups that have ethics as their core focus -- which includes religions and social welfare groups -- have long lists of proscriptions, policies, etc. I don't think that any of it necessarily applies to open-source software, though. It's apples to oranges.

> If thought through like this - even if your examples of ethics are not what I chose - can you see the value in a strong, clear ethical position, even if it's to warn people?

Well, that's precisely my point: The CoC itself is the warning. It's usually bad news in itself -- an exposed surface that's weaponizable against contributors who give to the project in good faith.