The more specific a CoC is, the more loopholes there are that people will exploit. We just expect "professional behavior", and for those who want to argue about what that means, we refer them to Emily Post's books.<p>This works out quite well for us.
CoC proponents and committees talk with angel tongues about their good intentions. In practice, it comes down to roughly 3-5 people who play the "deciders". Here's a well known result of power abuse:<p><a href="https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/" rel="nofollow">https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/</a><p>Most cancellations are plain abuses of power, with no fair hearing (or no hearing at all!) of both sides.<p>Characteristically, these power grabs occur when languages are done and people (representing their corporations) fight for the pieces. And they fight dirty.
This is a good change. It doesn’t allow people to hide behind the shield of “good intentions” while refusing to change their behavior. Refusing to change your behavior after learning of its negative impacts on others is negligent best.<p>“Any sufficiently advanced negligence is indistinguishable from malice.”
One thing I dislike about our new moral arbiters is their view that intent doesn’t matter. They will use anything (e.g. a microaggression, a usually inadvertent tiny slight) to justify cancelling someone. Tolerance for them also only has only one meaning: tolerate us.
Freedom of speech is important but I think some underestimate how destructive hostile speech can be towards collaboration and constructive conversation.<p>With a little effort it’s possible to use non-violent communication (NVC) to express yourself fully without blaming or criticizing others.<p>And sure it’s also a worthy goal to not take things personally, but collaboration just works better IMO when we’re as kind and respectful as possible.
>Avoid snarking (pithy, unproductive, sniping comments)<p>On the other hand...<p>9 out of 10 really skilled devs/engineers or profs that I met had tendency to be kinda snarky, especially when somebody's trying to do bullshit<p>Is lack of subtle/direct snarkiness a good thing?<p>It's like putting constrains on language/tools to express yourself, maybe too harshly?<p>Maybe it's considered normal in "cultures" where people are more straightfoward
I'm interested if projects with CoCs ever blow off complainants for being unreasonable. I know for a fact some project maintainers can be rude and verbally abusive, but I also know complainants can be unreasonable bullies with a chip on their shoulder as well.
> The paradox of tolerance is that the one group of people we can’t welcome are those who make others feel unwelcome.<p>I really hope Google takes a strong stance and bans Muslim from all projects due to their views on homosexuality. While a minority of Muslims might not personally have an issue with homosexuality I don't think it's fair to ask people to tolerate members of such an intolerant religion.