I wouldn't feel welcome in a project with that Code of Conduct due to being an atheist. I expect many devout Christians, Muslims, etc. feel the same way about a Code of Conduct that I'd support though.
Conversation
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
There's an intentionally high barrier to entry for contributing code or even reporting a bug but there's an open community around the core developers that's moderated by them on the mailing lists, etc. This code of conduct is meant to extend to that too.
1
1
And this should reflect negatively on the project's public image and be a factor in deciding whether to use or continue to use it.
1
It reflects negatively on my view of the project and all I'm trying to say is that I can understand why they would do this based on their beliefs. I think it's a sincere, ridiculous decision rather than trolling. I think this is genuinely meant to reflect their beliefs.
2
3
I really don't think the intention is to ridicule a standard secular humanist / progressive take on a Code of Conduct. I think they looked at them, fundamentally disagree with some minor aspects of it and tried to choose something better representing their values, etc.
1
1
The one aspect of the Contributor Convenant that I strongly dislike is asking to respect *viewpoints* rather than the people expressing those views. I also find it silly to treat religion as an innate protected class rather than being part of ethical, political and other beliefs.
2
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
I'm just talking about the content of contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/co rather than their rationale for making it. I haven't looked at previous versions but this looks pretty good to me other than asking to respect viewpoints rather than the people expressing them.
I think "use of sexualized language or imagery" also needs more nuance and I think the current way of stating and interpreting it is often taken too far. I understand where they're coming from with that though. Even just "use of inappropriate sexualized language or imagery".
1
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Show replies