I wasn't arguing for formal verification, but you should notice that actual legislation is a lot less vague than the Django CoC.

>It follows that to work well it needs the people doing the interpretation (judges, committees, ombudsman, etc) to be competent, and be selected so that people can have faith in them.

And that's another problem with the Django CoC that I was mentioning, there's nothing there insuring that someone that's accused receives a due process, nor that all complaints are listened to equally.

https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/enforcement-manual/ documents at length how the committee handling the violation reports is appointed, how they conduct their work, how their oversight works etc.

Then, https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/reporting/) describes an appeal process: "Appealing: Only permanent resolutions (such as bans) may be appealed. To appeal a decision of the working group, contact the DSF Board at [email protected] with your appeal and the DSF board will review the case"

"Justice"

Remember that there is still after the fact accountability, and that the system relies on the people in the WG being trusted community members and reasonable people.

BTW this is not far from how it works in the real world. Bob is not going to be able to litigate his side of the story and face his accusers in most situations where he is removed from premises for harassment or threats of violence. And people generally are fine with this.

Or might not. Especially if either project CoC's in general or Project X's specifically are known for being interpreted and enforced capriciously.