On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Robert Kern
A CoC has to pull a kind of double duty: be friendly enough to digest for a newcomer and also be helpful to project organizers to make tough balancing decisions. We don't have to expect each sentence to pull that double duty on its own. I don't quite know what the phrasing would be (because, again, we don't run conferences), but I think we could make a statement that explicitly disclaims that we will be using "viewpoint diversity" to provide a platform for viewpoints antithetical to the CoC.
None of these categorizations listed should be interpreted as get-out-of-jail-free cards for otherwise unwelcoming behavior, and I think maybe we should be explicit about that. Our diversity statement is an aspiration, not a suicide pact. Religion, neurotype, national origin, and subculture (4chan is a subculture, God help us), at minimum, are all items on that list that I have personally seen used to justify shitty behavior. Political belief is far from unique (nor the most common excuse, in my experience) in that list. But they all deserve to be on that list. I want the somewhat fringy progressive hacktivist to feel comfortable here as well as people more mainstream.
This all seems very sensible to me. In personal projects I use the WeAllJS CoC, because I think it does a good job of giving clear guidance on behavior and non-scary enforcement examples, while also avoiding legalism and being clear that trying to game the rules won't work. It might be a good source of inspiration here: https://github.com/WeAllJS/weallbehave/blob/latest/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org