It's worse than that, these are deeply authoritarian and self-righteous mediocrities, only tangentially invested in a field where they would be rightfully irrelevant otherwise. What other kind of person would want to be part of such a committee? So in effect we created a lure for psychos and then gave them unchecked power to legislate over everybody else. What could go wrong.

Sounds like an HOA.

> "After they told me of the reports and their finding that I had violated the code of conduct, they asked if I had anything to say."

That's essentially a Kafka trap [1].

[1] https://lifelessons.co/critical-thinking/kafkatrapping/

That article has to be one of the most bewildering things I've ever read.

I have not seen the term "SJW" used so many times in proximity to Orwell and 1984 references before; well, at least not outside of a gamergate board

Denying its a kafka trap only proves that it is.

Unfortunately, a CoC and a committee to enforce it are now table stakes for an open source project. Part of the reason, I believe, is because companies refuse to commit resources to open source without some assurance that the project will employ best practices to prevent discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment, lest the company find itself liable for such. (There's also the "good corporate citizen" bit about not being seen to support bigotry and hate.) And corporate resources dominate open source -- without them we go back to dorm-room side projects of questionable maintenance.

A-Train's Law applies: You don't fuck with the money. You never fuck with the money.

Agree that these are table stakes, and I speak as someone whose day job is managing a team that works on a fairly large open source project which is bound by the Linux Foundation CoC. And yes you are right, it is all about the money at the end of the day.

But here's the thing; if one of my devs made a gaffe at a conference, they'd have the full weight of myself and the company defending them, they definitely would not find themselves alone facing some kangaroo court that answers only to itself :)

Personally I'm skeptical about them. People who behave badly will behave badly. People who don't generally won't. The drumbeat of CoCs may make some difference at the margins but I'm skeptical. In any case, as you suggest, a refusal to have a CoC is itself a political statement that sends the message that you don't believe in good behavior and is pretty much a non-starter for that reason.

In general, they're well meant. And in my experience issues arise not so much from the conference organizers but some attendee taking offence over something in a way that most would consider hypersensitive. And the organizers feeling they have to take their side even if they personally disagree.

> But here's the thing; if one of my devs made a gaffe at a conference, they'd have the full weight of myself and the company defending them...

Maybe you are right. But this seems very surprising, the company instinct would likely be to cut loses and have that person fired to avoid further bad publicity.

> And corporate resources dominate open source -- without them we go back to dorm-room side projects of questionable maintenance.

How was that saying "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"?

Maybe FSF should have rebranded as Liberty not "Libre" software.

That was Benjamin Franklin, and the quote, while good on its own, has been pulled out of context: "The letter wasn’t about liberty but about taxes and the ability to “raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him.”"

That's what free software always meant -- free as in freedom. Stallman is a 1960s lefty, and puts personal freedom at the center of his philosophy. Today's left is... different, and more concerned with score settling, specifically, paying for privileged groups' historical privilege with a purgatory of additional restrictions going forward. Personal freedom for all is not the goal, matter of fact it's inimical to the goal.

The hacker ethos is dead. Now contributing to open source is just like working for a corporation. Except for free.

> And corporate resources dominate open source -- without them we go back to dorm-room side projects of questionable maintenance.

I imagine the transition from "side project" to "I might as well be working for a MegaCorp with all of this HR-esque CoC nonsense" would be most unpleasant. How many project founders bow out at that point?

Yeah, that transition from a hobby project to a big payout/nice salary/more usage/more resources must really sting. (Obviously it's a big change but I don't think most would consider it a net negative.)

> big payout/nice salary/more usage/more resources

if you get the actual payout and your project doesn't just get AWS-ified. :)

We're moving to a world where we have to deal with unaccountable HR departments and policies like a regular job, but do not get compensated for our contributions like a regular job unless we are already employees of a significant corporate contributor.