Why have a CoC then at all? If you know that it is not the rules that make them resilient then why make them at all. All they serve to do is giving ways to exclude people based on Loopholes and overly strict interpretation of said rules.

If the leadership interpreting those rules are reasonable then they wouldn't need these rules in the first place, if they are not reasonable then the rules are useless.

Especially since CoC are most often applied in a very Hypocritical way. The CoC states "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences" which is however only true if you have one of the approved viewpoints. Which we are seeing right now with the Linux CoC. Of course no one does anything about all the slanderous accusations that get made to oust someone with the CoC even though those accusations themselves are violating the CoC.

It is also especially worrisome that these pushes for CoC or language policing come mostly from the outside and try to dictate the rules you need to follow and the rules that you need to make people in your project follow.

The thing is Linus HIMSELF has admitted that there is a problem and that he was a part of the problem. He has not only signed off on the CoC, but has also stepped down for a while. Like I said, the CoC is an effort to address things that have been going wrong in certain communities-- like Linux, Stackoverflow, and some conferences. If everything were A-OK, there would be no need for them.

With the risk of sounding like a tinfoil conspiracy theorist here: I don't believe that this came from him. This came from outside pressure. Not just the fact that parts of his statements where clearly written by someone else, but also the fact that this comes after years of pressure for him to step down.

What exactly do you believe that this CoC addresses by the way? I am generally unconvinced that a CoC does anything positive at all, but what is it that you believe that it does?

Given his history, he doesn't seem like someone that is manipulable and I expect he has enough FU money and cred to not be coerced into anything unwillingly. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best?

The way a CoC would work, I think, is hard to quantify.

Sure, it may mean that some folks rage-quit on principle, some will continue bad conduct and get themselves kicked out, some will subvert the intent of it one way or another.

But if a CoC is "successful", it will mean that gradually you'll start to see folks who were previously under-represented start to contribute. You'll see more diversity and less fear and loathing. Is that a worthy goal? Yes, for many.

His statement came very surprising after years of beeing a different opinion. He just changed overnight I guess? Also his statement contained both UTF-8 and ASCII quote characters which is at least an indication that this was not one person writing it.

"Worthy Goal" Has that worked anywhere in practice? Who is underrepresented right now and why? Do we know?

The type of diversity archived by a CoC like this is litteraly skin deep anyways and might cost you diversity of thought. We already see "wrong" think beeing excluded.

Why do you think they were written by someone else?

His statement contained both UTF-8 and ascii quote chars. That is at least an indication that parts where written by someone else. At best this was a lawyer checking and providing feedback to his statement. At worst this was someone forcing him to write this.

It is also suspicious to me how this change was seemingly not discussed in any way prior and that it was a very sudden change for him.

None of that is an argument for or against the CoC, though, is it? Just because something can be survived doesn't make it a good idea, does it?

> Linux will not be destroyed by a CoC that tries to be more inclusive even if there are attempts at abusing that CoC.

Also, apart from the fact that this isn't an argument in favor: How do you know that?

Also, how does it try to be more inclusive by declaring more behavior off limits? I mean, it's a set of rules that mostly specifies what you can be banned for. Now, you might also dislike those things that are declared unacceptable ... but that doesn't really make it more inclusive, does it?

And mind you I am not saying that being more exclusive is necessarily a bad thing, but I very much dislike this kind of newspeak because it seems manipulative to me.