Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Beware the contributor covenant code of conduct

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Beware the contributor covenant code of conduct
beoran
Member #12,636
March 2011

OK, I normally don't come to this forum, but I have a concern to share.

As of lately, I see more and more open source including a code of conduct, sometimes due to external pressure, sometimes from their own accord. I can agree that sometimes it's useful to set out a few guidelines for contributing in a project, forum, or whatnot. Although most people tend to behave, making a few rules explicit isn't always a bad thing. And when written correctly, such a guideline could help encourage people to contribute.

However, after researching a bit, I have come to the conclusion that most of these codes of conduct, and escpecially the rather popular contributor covenant code of conduct as written by Coraline Ada, (https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant) is not written with the best interests of FLOSS developers in mind. Rather, it seems to be a sneaky trojan horse that will be used against us at a more appropriate time for political reasons.

While the contents of the covenant itself are a mixed bag, with some good and some bad in it, the thing that tipped me off is that an actual USA lawer (https://www.quora.com/Is-a-Code-of-Conduct-a-legal-document) who informally confirmed that this code of conduct is a legaly binding document on the part of the contributors.

This means means that if you implement this, any idiot who feels offended can come in, trap you with a situation where you are unable to formulate a timely response, complain that you are not following the code to which you legally bound yourself, and sue you for damages. Furthermore I fear that this particular code of conduct was most likely written with the hidden intent of enabling this scenario. That why I would recommend that none of you implement this particular code of conduct for your FLOSS projects.

Furthermore if you do accept or devise yourself a code of conduct, then it seems advisable to add a prominent disclaimer that participation in your project is at the own risk of the participant. I may be getting a bit too suspicious, but I have seen what happens to those who aren't so. I wish I we lived in a world where such disclaimers weren't necessary, but I fear that that is not at all the case any more. :(

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I've been 100% against CoC since I first saw them. They're absolutely a political push that is corrupting what has been a utopia of free thought and experimentation.

If you pay attention, the people who push for CoC (and things like that), are almost never pioneers. They're always people who see someone else's hard work, and then try to control it through guilt and emotions. They don't invent. They latch on to other people's work like a parasite, and then try to steer it in a direction they want.

Any large organization attracts those kind of people. "Nesters." People who don't care about driving the mission further, they only care about making a comfortable space to socialize in. And because nobody can agree on what comfortable is, they invariably inject an atmosphere of toxicity into the whole organization. There is no clear hierarchy (who is more "progressive?", who is more "inclusive?", I AM!), so the war is always on to get more people on their side so they can do things like exclude someone they hate by doing something passive aggressive like not inviting ONE person out to lunch when everyone else goes. It's highschool clicks in the adult world. Childish, pettiness, masquerading as "justice" and "progress."

But the fact you're saying those are legally binding? That's actually shocking. That means you're handing anyone with a political agenda a gun, and saying "Please don't use this on me." It's like willingly signing a Chilling Effect contract.

This is also why they hate Meritocracy. Why? Because in a proper organization, the people who are smartest and doing the most work steer the organization. They don't want to do work. They just want to use guilt as a fast-pass into the control room. They're either too lazy, or too incompetent to compete AND THEN steer the world, so instead they say "competing is wrong. So let me jump straight to control and influence."

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

Github was already infected with these hive-minded emocratic cultists:
http://theralphretort.com/github-censors-gamergate/

That Github will hire an obvious troublemaker like that Coraline Ada is a bad sign for the organization. It's unbelievable to me that the usually intelligent people that work in open source can't see that this woman is a cult member who wants to drag everyone else into her crazy world.

beoran
Member #12,636
March 2011

@Chris: I knew I'm not the only one, thanks for confirming that :) . I think it borders on iditic that contemporary feminist criticise meritocracy simply because some organisations claim to be meritocratic but are nt so in reality . That's like saying democracy is bad because the Democratic Republic of Congo is not really democratic.

@Tothu: Github is a big organisation and as such more prone to pressure from such groups. The fact that Coaline Ada was hired by Github and other incients point a sort of appeasement strategy on their part.

Of course I'd be surprised if she does anything useful there. Basically many of these shitstorms seem to have the ulterior motive of getting certain people well paid jobs in which they essentialy have can continue their political struggle without doing anything useful. Or to allow them to continue to be guest speakers at certain events for 20k $ a pop.

I can understand why Github attempts an appeasement strategy. For such an organisation it's hard to stand up and say no. The bad point is that they got infiltrated with these kind of people, though. For the time being, I am stil making use of Github for their open source hosting. But if the day ever comes that they try to force a legally binding document on my projects, then I will probably be forced to most my projects myself on some hired VM.

I think Coralin Ada's behavior on the Opal project speaks for itself. Let's think for one moment here: My friend sees a comment that offends them on Twitter by someone involved in an open source project. As a reasonable adult, what is my reaction? The first thing in my mind would be to simply ignore it, and tell my friend to cool down. After all, the internet swarms with people with different opinions, . If the comment sounded especially wrong to me, I may make a comment about it, or in the worst case write an article about it. Never in my mind would it occur to me to attack the person who wrote the comment and try to get him banned from his own project! The ability to disagree civilly even on controversial topics is one of the pillars of western civilisation.

Edit: Oh my, maybe my attempts to try to salvage the Coc for it's stated purpose in stead of the bludgeon it is now are not falling into good earth:

https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/41#issuecomment-232145279
(archive:)
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20160712191145%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FContributorCovenant%2Fcontributor_covenant%2Fissues%2F41&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF5unzIbbyMSHVdaDp82PWUVJERpg

Well, maybe there is no talking to these people, but at least I tried.

Edit 2: Interesting how I'm accused of being unwelcoming, but a supporter of theirs who is equally dismissive isn't. Oh well... I doubt my esteemed adversary will take up the challenge I raised. ;)

furinkan
Member #10,271
October 2008
avatar

Perhaps I'm out of the loop, but I fail to see how this has a place at all in Open Source software. If the code is worth committing, accept the pull request. If it isn't good, ignore the pull request. I honestly don't care what kind of person committed it.

If someone is a misogynistic asshole, I'd encourage them to go fornicate with themselves. I don't like religious dogmatists, new-wave feminists, racists, or a handful of other groups that I think are oppressive. I fail to see how this affects their code contributions, though. Thanks for the bugfix, you've done the world a service. You're still an asshole though. ;D

Erin Maus
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

furinkan said:

If the code is worth committing, accept the pull request. If it isn't good, ignore the pull request. I honestly don't care what kind of person committed it.

Well I'd ignore a pull request from Linus Torvalds, for example. And then I'd use my new lucid powers to great effect... until I wake up.

Such is life.

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.
they / them / their

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Is... is that some kind of super-class sarcasm, or would you really ignore a request from Torvalds?

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Erin Maus
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Wow.

And then I'd use my new lucid powers to great effect... until I wake up.

Please see: in your dreams (idiom), lucid dreaming, sleep, dreaming.

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.
they / them / their

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

While a code of conduct like this seems a little overkill, I really can't say I disagree with anything in the document itself... but yeah.. it's a good code of conduct to follow. [Edit] .. the allegro.cc agreement is a legally binding document too! :P

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

Did you read it?
http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/

Basically, you can be booted from the project if some decides to "take offense" to something you said. Or if you criticize the views of a team member that see this document as a weapon for their own political agenda (which is exactly what it is).

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4,
available at http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/

This implies to me that modifications are allowed, but I can't find the text describing how you're expected to go about it. I assume because of the MIT license that modifications can be freely made just as you would with source code. You can't claim to have the Contributor Covenant at that point, but the document still says it's adapted from it. You might be able to have some fun with that by adapting from it a contradictory CoC. Just a thought.

Append:

The well established hacker, Eric Raymond, past maintainer of the hacker jargon file and author of fetchmail, for example, has blogged on the topic and I feel he's expressed it better than we probably would if we tried: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918. None of the social justice issues matter to the software. In particular, it doesn't matter to the project if you're a racist rapist as long as your contributions to the project are good. What you do in your own time doesn't reflect the projects you contribute to, nor should it. It's completely irrelevant.

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

torhu said:

Basically, you can be booted from the project if some decides to "take offense" to something you said.

It doesn't say that explicitly, which line?

Quote:

Or if you criticize the views of a team member that see this document as a weapon for their own political agenda (which is exactly what it is).

I'd need to see an example, as that is not in the document itself. Is there a specific situation where this happened, or are you being hypothetical?

Some people are just too crass for working as part of a team, and this document would get rid of them.

[edit]
Just to clarify, almost every workplace here in Canada has similar codes of conduct.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Without specifically defining all of the wrongdoings they're completely open to interpretation which means that telling somebody they're wrong could be misconstrued as harassment. Essentially, the document doesn't actually do anything to keep the community safe or civil: no document is needed for that because moderators of project spaces always have the freedom to correct behavior that they find inappropriate (and they did long before SJWs complained). The only thing the document does do is potentially make the project liable to damages if somebody decides they've been wronged by the project's community and don't feel that the "leadership" personnel acted appropriately to protect them from it. It essentially puts the project at risk by outsiders by making a legal claim that wrongdoings must be dealt with.

That said, keep in mind that it's a living document. It used to have far more worrisome wording in previous revisions. The latest (at least the one that I just read) doesn't seem so bad except for failing to precisely define the wrongdoings and guaranteeing action by the project.

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

bamccaig said:

Without specifically defining all of the wrongdoings they're completely open to interpretation which means that telling somebody they're wrong could be misconstrued as harassment.

Legally, no. Do you have any proof from the document to support this claim?

Quote:

no document is needed for that because moderators of project spaces always have the freedom to correct behavior that they find inappropriate

That's why I said it's overkill for most projects, this is just an outline of how to be a decent person.

Quote:

make the project liable to damages if somebody decides they've been wronged by the project's community and don't feel that the "leadership" personnel acted appropriately to protect them from it

How does it "make" it that way? They're liable for these types of things without the document. The Internet is just horribly policed.

The following things are illegal to do:

Quote:

The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances

Quote:

Public or private harassment

Quote:

Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission

The two lines that are not necessarily covered directly by law and are open to interpretation:

Quote:

Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks

Quote:

Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

.. but is it those lines that are the concern?

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Derezo said:

Legally, no. Do you have any proof from the document to support this claim?

The OP already referenced a comment by an alleged lawyer stating that the document could be considered a legally binding contract depending on how the project adopts it.

As for the wrongdoings being open to interpretation unless they are defined exactly, they're just words obviously open to interpretation. They have different definitions by different groups. For example, a Feminist group would consider a man they aren't attracted to giving them a compliment as harassment. It's not a criminal matter so criminal law doesn't really matter. It would be up to the two plaintiffs in a civil court to make their case either way and it would be up to the judge to make a decision.

The point is, ordinarily there is no expectation for places to be free of these things. As long as no criminal laws are broken the law doesn't care. This could change that. Even if a judge finds you not liable, it could still take thousands of dollars in court fees to arrive there..

Derezo said:

The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances...

Generally, no. Sexualized language and imagery are not illegal in themselves. It could be determined that they were given context, but as a rule it's not illegal (and certainly not worth the time and money to punish it most of the time).

Unwelcome sexual attention or advances are generally not illegal either. Certainly sexual assault is illegal, but it's generally open to interpretation again what that exactly is. Some would argue kissing a girl that didn't want to be kissed is sexual assault. And maybe they're right. At the same time, sexual advances typically aren't preceded by explicit consent, in large part because women tend to find that unattractive and expect men to take risks.

Whether or not it's assault would generally hinge on whether or not the accused ought to have known the attention or advances were unwanted or if the accused was persistent after being told no. It's a very gray area of law because it's impossible to keep everybody happy as well as impossible to keep everybody safe without contradicting human nature.

Derezo said:

Public or private harassment

There's a difference online. In person you generally don't have the ability to reasonably escape from it and there's typically no reason you should have to. When it comes to online harassment you always have a choice. Simply walk away from the computer.

SJW's complain that harassment is systemic online, but it's not true that everywhere you go people are being intentionally harmful. The SJW's are just hypersensitive and just have too strict of a definition. Certain spaces "online" are traditionally a "boy's club" and boys behave in different ways than girls. That's not wrong. Just different. If girl's want to come into the clubhouse the boys don't have to change the rules to suit the girls. The girls have to accept that the boy's club isn't a girl's club and deal with it or leave. They tend to have a hard time understanding that.

Legitimate harassment is a serious problem and should be dealt with by police. Having your anonymous "avatar" called names by somebody on the Internet is not harassment. You can usually mute or ignore them, report them to moderators, and if none of that is available or suitable then it probably indicates that your presence is a privilege, not a right, and you should simply leave if you don't like it. You can create your own space for like-minded people.

Derezo said:

Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission

Physical addresses are public information (i.e., typically phone books contain them, not to mention the outside of mail, the unsecured side). Similarly, electronic addresses (e.g., email addresses and IP addresses) are not private information. They are routinely shared across the entire Web in forwarding chains.

Again, privacy laws might restrict businesses and organizations that are collecting your information, but that wouldn't typically affect individuals.

Derezo said:

.. but is it those lines that are the concern?

It's really the hidden intention of the document that's the concern. The author of it has tried to have a regular contributor to a project exiled for what he said online unrelated to the project. Arguably she tried to bully/harass him because she didn't agree with what he said. Given her actions and the lack of an apology or admissions of guilt I have to conclude that she thinks that's reasonable behavior. I have to assume that her intention behind creating this document is to make that easier to do in the future. That should never be done so I definitely don't want them to make it easier to do it. The open source community is run by some of the smartest people in the world. Very open minded people. It's absolute bullshit to accuse them of blatant ismses when in reality they're probably some of the most willing people to change their mind when they're found to be wrong. I find this entire thing to be an attack on open source by people that don't care about software. That aren't welcome because they don't want to be there, not because of prejudice.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Quote:

For example, if a coder makes an “insulting/derogatory comment” on Twitter that’s entirely unconnected to their coding work, they are still liable to be kicked out of their open source project if the project is governed by the Contributor Code. It’s a recipe for policing the behaviour of the entire open source community across the whole of the world wide web.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/25/github-hires-notorious-social-justice-warrior-to-work-on-anti-harassment/

The only way Trump is going to be involved in a landslide is if the land surrounding the White House collapses into the Earth's core. -- bamccaig

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

bamccaig said:

The OP already referenced a comment by an alleged lawyer stating that the document could be considered a legally binding contract depending on how the project adopts it.

And it was speculation..... If you actually read it it's not very conclusive, suggests that you would need to post a notice to accompany the document, and does not reference any concerns in particular, cites no references, and has no basis in reality.

Quote:

For example, a Feminist group would consider a man they aren't attracted to giving them a compliment as harassment.

I doubt it.

Quote:

Generally, no. Sexualized language and imagery are not illegal in themselves. It could be determined that they were given context, but as a rule it's not illegal (and certainly not worth the time and money to punish it most of the time).

As a general rule, this is sexual harassment. Just because it's often unpoliced doesn't mean you can sexually harass fellow contributors if you don't adopt this code. ::)

Quote:

There's a difference online.

The law states there is not.

Quote:

Having your anonymous "avatar" called names by somebody on the Internet is not harassment.

We disagree here. Just because a person is anonymous does not mean you have the right to harass them ::) Are you serious here?

Quote:

Physical addresses are public information

Again, not legally. You can make it public, but your address is private information until you explicitly share it with the public, such as by allowing companies to publish in the white pages.

Quote:

It's really the hidden intention of the document that's the concern.

Do they have any success stories with their intention? Has anyone actually been sued or is this just what you think could happen to some jerk on the internet?

[edit]
That Breitbart article was a good read, but those two examples aren't really good examples of misuse or unintended use of the code or abuse of censorship. If you're going to associate yourself and your account on a network with a project and post hateful remarks, then wouldn't that project maintainer want to remove you? You're not following the code, you just shouldn't be there if you hold those kinds of opinions about other people and make them public on that network. Post them anonymously like all the other rejects if you have something hateful to say.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

One of several issues with this is that it covers way more than what most sane people would consider to be "hateful remarks". This is more like the authoritarian left's version of blasphemy.

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Which part? Work places typically have similar policies (that are also legally binding).

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

Take off your blinders, man. Do you even know what the term "social justice warrior" means? Do you really want to risk being booted from a project because you told a joke that the most incompetent person on the team "found offensive", and then proceeded to use that opportunity to take their misery out on someone else?

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

It's a pejorative, which some would categorize as falling under hate speech, heh.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

Specter Phoenix
Member #1,425
July 2001
avatar

Well according to one "social justice warrior" feminist, if you lie, get caught, and are told daily by people that you are a liar,even though it is true; it is harassment. The legal definition also is so vague that literally anything can be considered harassment lately.

Quote:

Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety.

"Can't a man even talk to himself without being interrupted?" -Krull(1983)
"Through vengence I was born. Through war I was trained. Through love I was found. Through death I was released. Through release I was given a purpose." -- Specter Phoenix
"Programming == AWESOME the rest is just tools to accomplish it."
END OF LINE

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

Well, this ideology (which was created and is perpetuated by Western feminists in the academia in the US) is the religion of the stupid, the incompetent, the uninformed, the weak, and the useless. If they lived in an Islamic country, none of them would do anything at all. They would just shut up and suffer in silence. Which makes it even more insane that, in their world, muslims is a protected class that needs to have their religious views unchallenged. But in the West, these feminists have the freedom to be crybullies, and to spread their insane, hateful ideology.

Just look at what they have done to many European countries, like Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, or Belgium. Or the UK. Or to Canada, which now has a complete idiot as a prime minister. It's unbelieveable.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Derezo said:

And it was speculation..... If you actually read it it's not very conclusive, suggests that you would need to post a notice to accompany the document, and does not reference any concerns in particular, cites no references, and has no basis in reality.

Legal advice is always speculation. Either there's a precedent set that matches it exactly and the advice is concrete, or there's related precedent that leads the expert to his conclusions and it's a best guess, or they have no fucking idea and can only guess what a judge will say based on their experiences with related matters in court. Ultimately there are no guarantees. Judges can even break from precedent where they feel it's appropriate. It would have to go to court and have a judge make a decision. And again and again until we were really sure of much of anything. That's a potentially expensive and damaging way to get an answer.

Derezo said:

Quote: said:

For example, a Feminist group would consider a man they aren't attracted to giving them a compliment as harassment.

I doubt it.

Oh, well now I feel better! Derezo doubts it!

Clearly you haven't seen any of the "cat calling" videos made by the Feminists for YouTube.

Derezo said:

As a general rule, this is sexual harassment. Just because it's often unpoliced doesn't mean you can sexually harass fellow contributors if you don't adopt this code. ::)

I was unaware of the OHRC until you posted that link so I had to do some research. Dear, god, how the fuck are these people funded by the tax payers? Fuck them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Tribunal_of_Ontario#Controversial_decisions

It's essentially a SJW arm of the government. Their description of harassment is mostly reasonable, except for...

Quote:

Section 10 of the Code defines harassment as “engaging in a course of vexatious[8] comment or conduct that is known or ought to be known to be unwelcome.”

It's good that it specifies the part about "known or ought to be known to be unwelcome." However, note that this is entirely subjective. Different people will have different lines to cross at different times. And "unwelcome" is simply too permissive. Some people would find criticism of their ideas or work "unwelcome". That shouldn't make it harassment, but obviously if the definition is so vague anything is possible.

It's also worth noting the terminology used...

Quote:

[8] "Vexatious” conduct or comment refers to actions or words that are annoying, distressing or agitating to the person experiencing them; for example, conduct has been found to be vexatious where the person complaining finds the comments or conduct worrisome, discomfiting and demeaning: see Streeter v. HR Technologies, 2009 HRTO 841 at para. 33.

"Annoying?" That's pretty open ended. Essentially, the definition is vague enough so that anything could be considered harassment. A SJW might insist that it's annoying that you wear socks and sandals. Maybe she gets very upset at the sight of it. That would technically fit the definition. If she makes this known to you are you required to not wear socks and sandals? Is it really causing her any harm? Is it really any of her business? The problem with "harassment" is that it's so incredibly subjective. I've already explained that. This doesn't change that.

Definition of "vex" said:

verb (used with object)
1. to irritate; annoy; provoke:
His noisy neighbors often vexed him.
2. to torment; trouble; distress; plague; worry:
Lack of money vexes many.
3. to discuss or debate (a subject, question, etc.) with vigor or at great length:
to vex a question endlessly without agreeing.
4. to disturb by motion; stir up; toss about.
5. to afflict with physical pain.

Holy Christ, lack of money!? That's a terribly ironic example for this particular case. Could a woman that works part time make a harassment claim because she is only earning part-time pay and it's distressing that she can't afford her bills?!

Fuck it, can I make that same claim working full-time because I'm struggling to pay mine? :o

Definition of "comfit" (not a typo) said:

verb (used with object)
1. to confuse and deject; disconcert:
to be discomfited by a question.
2. to frustrate the plans of; thwart; foil.
3. Archaic. to defeat utterly; rout:
The army was discomfited in every battle.

Wow, now confusing somebody or thwarting their plans fits the definition too! This is getting incredibly relaxed. Better be careful interacting with women and minority groups in the work place! Maybe it would be best to avoid them entirely!

Derezo said:

The law states there is not.

The law is referring to legitimate harassment. Merely being called a name is not something the police will worry about. In fact, a man could call a woman a name in the street in front of a police officer and he probably wouldn't even flinch 9 times out of 10 (and that 10th time he was probably going to flinch anyway). Now if he threatens her or goes too far with it then the policeperson might intervene, depending on their own sensitivities, but there's a blurry, wide line between legal and illegal. Again it's subjective, but typically, the kinds of things that happen online that girls and women complain about are not criminal. We know this because alongside them are other girls and women and other minority group members that are enjoying in the fun.

Derezo said:

Just because a person is anonymous does not mean you have the right to harass them ::) Are you serious here?

Again, harassment is a serious charge. Merely calling somebody a name is not harassment. For example, when somebody posts an idea to the Linux kernel mailing list that Linus disagrees with it is not harassment when Linus replies back calling that person an idiot. It's simply communication. The idea is so bad that Linus is insulting your intelligence. It's not that big of a deal. Linus is not a criminal for it.

Derezo said:

Again, not legally. You can make it public, but your address is private information until you explicitly share it with the public, such as by allowing companies to publish in the white pages.

I suspect that this is highly specific to jurisdictions. From what I can tell it's regulated how government and private companies use and distribute your private information, but not individuals. Nothing I've found defined your home address as private information. On the contrary, they all said it's public information.

Derezo said:

Do they have any success stories with their intention? Has anyone actually been sued or is this just what you think could happen to some jerk on the internet?

I'm uncertain. "OpalGate" is what started it all and is essentially a precursor to the Contributor Covenant. It was created after the fact to presumably make this easier in the future, and in particular to make projects required to do it.

Here's a well reasoned discussion about this in relation to that:

http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/6214

Perhaps a better question is, have contributions to projects adopting the CoC changed since its adoption, and for the better or worse. I seriously doubt that much of anything has changed. If anything productivity has probably gone down with the distraction and divisive politics.

I think that a read through this issue thread for Ruby's adoption helps to signal their intention pretty clearly: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004. They aren't satisfied unless there's required "enforcement" built into the "contract". Fortunately the BDFL of Ruby appears to be a smart person so it doesn't sound like he wants to adopt anything of that nature for obvious reasons.

There's also this issue thread, which has since allegedly been deleted without notice by GitHub staff, in which a social justice warrior angry that his pull request with the Contributor Covenant was rejected accuses the project of discrimination, asserting that the project lead doesn't understand because he's white (despite not being white, with the SJW even retorting that he sure looks white...), ultimately ending with the duplicate issue being closed and the SJW attempting to intimidate him into compliance by reporting it to the non-profit organization that oversees development of the project:

https://archive.is/dgilk

They hadn't even adopted it yet, but already the BDFL was being threatened with it. I think that's all the evidence any reasonable person needs.



Go to: