On the Proposed PHP Code of Conduct

This is a an argument built on appeals both to Eric S. Raymond and the last several years of Twitter/Tumblr drama. It doesn't even discuss the CoC; instead, it adopts as a premise that any CoC that refers to "safety”, “welcoming” and “respect" must be tool of Twitter oppressors.

There are valid arguments against widespread adoption of CoCs (for instance: they can end up as window dressing). But this isn't an example of one.

(This story became flagged between the time I finished this comment and the time I submitted it. I used "vouch" to unflag so I could post the comment anyway, then "unvouch" to undo my vouch. While it was vouched, it got upvotes and this comment got upvotes, leading me to believe that there is interest in discussing this, but I'll leave it to others to make that decision)

The proposed code of conduct is terrible, because of this unclear section:

   This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces
   and in public spaces when an individual is representing
   the project or its community.

What is a "public space" and what counts as "representing the project or its community"?

For example, suppose Alice [1] is a core contributor to PHP and they adopt this code of conduct as written. On her Facebook public biographical information she proudly lists her PHP affiliation.

She also mentions her hobby of writing adult-oriented Harry Potter fan fiction, and links to her stories at fanfiction.net. These stories are full of sexualized language and imagery. Her author page at fanfiction.net also cites her PHP affiliation.

Is Facebook a "public space"? Is fanfiction.net a "public space"? Is listing her PHP affiliation on those sties count as "representing the project or its community"?

This is not just a theoretical issue. The author of that code of conduct submitted an issue to a project on Github that was not using a code of conduct trying to convince them to remove someone who tweeted something she thought was transphobic, on the grounds that he mentioned the project in his Twitter profile and so his statements reflect on the project [2].

[1] I'm using Alice as a generic name here. If there are any people named Alice who are PHP contributors, this is not a reference to them.

[2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

PS: Swift is using the same code of conduct. I sent them an email asking how they interpret these things, and their response was:

   We want to clarify with you that “representing the project
   or its community” in the context of “public spaces” refers
   to behavior at Swift-oriented events, and not to individual
   social/online profiles or unrelated interests.

PPS: The author of this code of conduct has stated that version 1.4 will expand that unclear section by adding:

   Due to their strong association with the project, core 
   contributors are always seen as actively representing it.

See https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/issues/1...

This post seems to be complaining about oppression, but doesn't seem to address the opposite end, oppressive attitudes/terminology used to intimidate those advocating for social equality. It offers no pathway to making the situation better.

This sort of discussion seems to go in an endless loop since one side wants to advocate for equality & try to use as many tools as possible to that end, while the other side does not seem to like the heavyhandedness & prefer to maintain the status quo as a reactionary measure, which does nothing to fix this disconnect or the fundamental issues.

It would be more productive to acknowledge the problems that plague others wanting to enter the ecosystem, and try to do things about it than to complain that one side is acting in an undesired manner - the status quo is already undesired as it is.

The problem is that these CoCs are being pushed on open source projects not because there is or was a problem with that project, but simply to push the politics of the CoC authors.

Was there actual bad behavior going on in the PHP project that prompted the CoC to be submitted? In the case of Opal, there wasn't. One of the core contributors said something on his personal Twitter that offended someone, then people came into the project with CoCs demanding his head.

Anyone can fork a project. That's how you deal with a toxic community, not strong arm yourself into a position to judge and oust existing community members and use the media to shame those that oppose you.

What are the problems that plague others wanting to enter the ecosystem? Assuming you mean some form of discrimination, I can't imagine an open source maintainer rejecting patches due to someone's race, sexuality, etc.

In industry, the only somewhat legit barrier I have heard is the influx of brogrammers, but that's mainly annoying, and it affects anyone who doesn't mix with frathouse culture (i.e. nearly all good programmers).