[chazu]

I don't know the owner of the project, but it seems that they are more concerned about the possibility of their project becoming a political football than anything else, which makes sense to me - in theory.

It also seems logical to point out that the contributor in question was effectively politicizing the project by making a bigoted comment on twitter, which undermines my previous statement.

The core question to me, as someone who understands the desire to remain consciously apolitical (or to try to, as many would say its an impossible task), is this: is it even _possible_ for maintainers of projects to sidestep these sorts of things? What kind of code of conduct would a project need to adopt to make sure that issues like this detract minimally from the progress of the project itself? I'm curious what others who feel strongly about communities in OSS think.

[krainboltgreene]

> is it even _possible_ for maintainers of projects to sidestep these sorts of things?

You can try very hard but realistically we're human and we have biases and our biases dictate what we do. If you are transphobic it's going to influence your opinion of a changeset from a transgender person. That's how we're wired to work.

> What kind of code of conduct would a project need to adopt to make sure that issues like this detract minimally from the progress of the project itself.

The Clearwater.rb project pulled in the Contributor Covenant, for what that's wroth.

[DanBC]

What does a changeset from a trans person look like?

I'm pretty sure people get more worked up about spaces vs tabs (at least they used to) or curly braces.

I totally agree that any transphobic comments or activity connected to the project needs to be dealt with.

But it's weird that people think this behaviour does anything to persuade the bigots. It's totally ineffective method of persuasion.