It was actually pretty mild, and did forbid harassment, but its purpose was to highlight how producing the best possible kernel was the ethos of the community.
Some will claim of course that it didn't do enough to highlight what was considered harassment, or that it didn't really have teeth because it didn't specify any consequences for bad behavior.
(The TAB members, for their part, are trying to allay the concerns of critics of the new CoC by essentially claiming that it still has no teeth, because the TAB cannot prevent maintainers from accepting contributions from people who allegedly violate the CoC).
The new CoC has a specifically different primary purpose:
> In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone
In other words, the goal has shifted from producing the best possible kernel to creating a welcoming environment for everyone. Now, even if you believe both are good goals, and even if you believe that these goals can be pursued in a synergistic manner, there's still a question of which is more fundamental to the ethos of the community.
[0]https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/code-of-confli...
Does it though? All it says to me, that whilst working towards this "telos", do it in a respectful manner.
Instead, all I'm trying to say is that while you see it in that light, others don't. Those others must make a decision - accept the change, quietly leave the project, or use the legal means at their disposal to disassociate themselves and damage the project in the process. That decision wasn't required of them before the CoC was created.
It does more than that. It allows for a path forward/establishes a slippery slope. Now a group that is most earnestly behind the implementation of the CoC to now point to this as a tipping point where the tyranny of the majority is accepted (and can now make modifications since you already agreed to a CoC, what are some nomic modifications to you?). This runs counter to the existing, unstable hierarchy.
Why don't we all just be people, accept that our best foot is not always the forward one, and accept positive contribution wherever it can be found.
I think this is the root of the issue - the previous state (not having a CoC) allowed contributors to assign their own telos, based on their perception. Creating a CoC creates a framework where none existed, and some people don't agree with that framework.
The CoC - any CoC - requires that all members agree on a telos. That wasn't necessary before.