From <a href="https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#note-159" rel="nofollow">https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#note-159</a><p>> Our community have 20+ years of history. We had a few issues in the past, but all of them could be resolve by the communication.<p>> On the other hand, we had to take great care to avoid bureaucracy in our workflows and processes. For me, avoiding bureaucracy is far immediate danger. Of course, <i>I agree with you in part, so I agree to add kind of CoC for the community.</i><p>Matz agrees with a CoC, but sees the Contributor Covenant as heavy-handed. Nothing wrong with that, no need to give this a title that's totally wrong.
Weird title: He can accept "the CoC", not just the draft in that thread, he wants a few changes (no banning, for example, people may want to change their minds), and then he proposed a slightly reworded CoC that has his changes, that's all
I frankly can't understand how the OP's first response after Matz's CoC rough draft is "now let's talk about enforcement." The priorities seem misconstrued to me.
A fun exercise:<p>Look through all the CoC supporters, and see how many bugs they have filed.<p>Then for added fun, see how many of the supporters of a CoC have even <i>commented</i> on other threads.<p>This is the very definition of astroturfing.
The discussion is a good thing. There are some dangers in blindly adopting draconian Cider House Rules, because, for instance, they can be gamed as cudgels to throw out individuals for any reasons rather than promote healthy debate and social give-and-take.