I'm curious what the implied violation was, if only for the benefit of other people thinking about CoCs.
The "What We Believe" section certainly has lots of open-ended language; it's quite easy to declare any unwelcome criticism 'unconstructive', or any dissenting views 'tactless'. But the "Don't" section is quite a bit more concrete, and mostly wouldn't apply. Was the implication that "this is a fundamentally bad idea" counts as "derailing" or "unstructured critique"?
here's what he's referencing:
https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13457
https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597
and the resulting(check the timestamps): https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13603
Only that process never materialised.
true, I initially missed the final response & only noticed it now when I linked the discussions. It is a bit disappointing and follows the common "wait until it cools down & give a non-response" pattern. But it's actually more than I expected.
A response like this shows that they really were in a bit of a blinder there for a sec :)
I don't have any inherently issue with CoCs, though I find it irritating when threat of "enforcing the CoC" is used as a method to silence legitimate, reasoned criticisms.