The whole point of a code of conduct is to promote good conduct and dissuade bad conduct. What's crazy about having moderators or having their moderation standards be the code of conduct?
Problem is selective enforcement. They have a member on their core team who has advocated violence in the past. It's just that it's violence against white people so it's "OK". They also have another person who is advocating violence against men. But again, their 'thought police' cops haven't done a thing.
The only substantial difference is located on the very first paragraph:
- education, socio-economic status
+ race
It is clearly the same CoC.
Nowhere in that text does it say that Twitter is some kind of private space where you can freely express unpopular opinions without consequences to your good standing as a contributor to software projects. The scope section actually says this:
>This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.
>Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.
As evidenced by the Opal issue I cited, the mere mention of a project on your Twitter profile causes people to assume it is an "official social media account" and therefore subject to the CoC.
>His Twitter profile mentions that he is a core contributor to opal.
>Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the project?
So why were there no consequences following this report?
