Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Switch to Contributor Covenant from Open Code of Conduct #8312
The author of the Contributor Covenant, Coraline Ada, is behind the OpalGate harassment and abuse scandal, and regularly contributes hate speech to former Neo-Nazi and current serial harasser and abuser Shanley Kane's blog, Model View Culture.
It would be very unwise for GitHub to be associated with such a cultural legacy, both PR-wise and legally.
OpalGate involved the modification of the Contributor Covenant and the weaponization of social media mobs specifically to bully a dev out of the Opal project because Contributor Covenant author Coraline Ada disagreed with his opinions.
Coraline Ada at Model View Culture, The Dehumanizing Myth of the Meritocracy: https://archive.is/fobyL
Coraline Ada at Model View Culture, Codes of Conduct: When Being Excellent is Not Enough: https://archive.is/M3WCe
The Madness Of Queen Shanley: https://archive.is/cmx41
'Yes, I was a racist' admits Shanley Kane: https://archive.is/Zys1I
'I taught Shanley Kane how to troll, and I'm sincerely sorry': https://archive.is/hMqwa
Radical Feminist Shanley Kane Doxxes Milo Yiannopoulos: https://archive.is/FT7zK
Eric S. Raymond, the father of the open source movement, disavowing Shanley Kane and all Code-of-Conduct-based political entryism attempts: https://archive.is/6F9Yr
Thanks for the feedback, @f4w5yhq6z7bo. Just to make sure I understand -- you have no problem with the text of the Contributor Covenant, but rather with the author of the text?
And why exactly would it be legally unwise to use that Contributor Covenant for the Atom project? Pointing out specific problems is always helpful.
I have a problem with all of it. The overarching problem is the insincere, malicious, and hateful motivations behind this entire Code of Conduct initiative, which Eric S. Raymond's piece makes clear. If you're going to read just one of the linked resources, read that one.
@TFenby I see your point, but the way I read it is that that section just encodes against harassment based on level of experience, which seems fine to me? I see how this kind of wording can lead to tricky situations though.
On first glance this CoC seems leaps and bounds better than the previous one, and for me is a clear improvement in terms of clarity of language and wordcount (1019 words previously to 270 for this one). Though I think the "no posting other people's e-mail addresses" bit is over the top, and I think it gets a bit authoritarian towards the end where it says project managers that don't enforce the CoC will be removed from the project.
If a CoC must be implemented at all, the NCoC will do.
The NCoC, archived: https://archive.is/dGg16
The NCoC README and FAQ: https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC/blob/master/README.md
The NCoC README and FAQ, archived: https://archive.is/JgQrg
What are we trying to fix: https://web.archive.org/web/20150703012458/http://nocodeofconduct.com/what
While I like the simple and succinct terminology of this covenant, I am not 100% on this sentence:
"Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct may be permanently removed from the project team."
It seems a bit harsh to encourage maintainers to be banished for not enforcing the rules enough.
"Project maintainers who actively or negligently violate the code of conduct..."
Thanks for pointing this out but the key distinction here is may be vs. will be. The decision to remove a maintainer won't be taken lightly and there would be many many discussions between maintainers before this would ever occur.