My objection to this code might be something in the line of "scope creep," or that it's "distracted," even though those aren't really the right words and might carry connotations I don't mean to imply. It feels like it's more about getting across a list of the ways it's possible to be Wrong On The Internet than it's about inspiring and instilling healthy and productive communication among adults.
--
Here's an example: I'm a member of a 500-person volunteer force that collaborates online, and we only get together in person to do our thing ~7 days a year. A huge flamewar will break out in our online communication 3 or 4 times a year. The prevailing opinion is one I agree with, but I still find the people I agree with argue the points in a way that are toxic to the overall org. But I have yet to see a code of conduct that would stop or heal the damage they're doing.
My department is absent from those threads with a regularity that hasn't gone unnoticed. We didn't plan it nor do we have an internal explanation for how it came to be. But our department head has gotten positive remarks on it from other heads and it would be naive to say it doesn't help maintain our reputation and working relationships outside our team. We cultivate it now, but I'm trying to figure out what caused it in the first place so I can spread that elsewhere.
I'd be amazed if you somehow managed to question this and still make it related to the Linux kernel...
> 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.
It's very specific. If you're representing the community, and you say something bigoted, then, yeah, that might be brought up. But that should be the case. No project wants its representatives doing stuff that reflects badly on the project or which creates a bad culture in the project community.
Besides, it's also just not a very good idea to post bigoted things, both in terms of making a better society and culture, and in terms of just following the Golden Rule and being nice to other people.
This is the way of life for most now. If you say anything remotely offensive and it ends up online/traceable to you. You will loose your job and most, if not all other actual job possibilities.
Yes you may argue that one should never do that (and I certainly agree) however, everyone is human and we all make mistakes. So what happens when we as a society decide to totally condemn individuals for their mistakes without allowing them to learn from them in the first place? I would wager, probably something not so nice.
Some argue that now that Linus realized how his communication is received sometimes, he will suddenly not be able anymore to tell people when shitty code is shitty. There are a billion ways to tell somebody their code is shitty with out attacking the person themselves, some of which might even make them realize that you are right. And Linus certainly didn't sound like he doesn't care about the kernel anymore.
IMO the Code of Conduct has nothing irrational or outrageous in it:
* don't be sexist (you can critique someones code without making it about their gender or gender identity)
* don't be racist (you can critique someones code without making it about their race or origin)
* don't be shitty to people who know less (you can critique someones code without making them about them beeing a noob, and help them getting better)
etc.
I don't see how having more harassment would aid code quality.