Update CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

[RahulSharma099]

I understand that:

• I'm submitting this PR for reference only. It shows an example of what I'd like to see changed but
  I understand that it will not be merged and I will not be listed as a contributor on this project.

[comradekingu]

How did you envision writing "unacceptable" would be understood?

[jtojnar]

This project is using Contributor Covenant code of conduct. It would be best to discuss changes upstream: https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant

[comradekingu]

There is a spelling error in here, in what is insult added to injury. Get rid of the CoC instead.
The person who wrote the original, was fired for precisely the first point you raised in your PR.
Case in point, a CoC is wishful thinking, and an authoritarian instrument.

[comradekingu]

@jtojnar The premise of adding an invariant section saying "unacceptable" is the same as any other time it is done, only now worse as a result of diverging from the original. How well do you think an appeal to logic is going to go over at the Covenant CoC repo?

The scope of interpretation is a wide as the thinking behind how it supposedly works is wishful. Sadly that isn't how it actually works, and its authoritarian appeal is to the contrary crystal clear, consequently also as a by-product of its vagueness.

interest of fostering, open and welcoming environment, pledge to making participation, harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of, welcoming and inclusive language, Being respectful, Gracefully accepting, Focusing on what is best for the community, Showing empathy, The use of sexualized language, unwelcome sexual attention or advances, Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, personal or political attacks, Public or private harassment, Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Clear as mud.

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

This is actually clear on the assumption "private" is understood, though if that isn't clear, it doesn't really need pointing out, nor did it originally… Much less in something to pledge allegiance to.

Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior, expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action, instances of unacceptable behavior, right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions, ban temporarily or permanently, behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful

Where it applies is then established, but then:

Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers

abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior, reviewed and investigated, result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances

Someone didn't notice that it already said "instances of unacceptable behavior", and now there is a PR to add a third instance, where its magic is applied to "username" and "commit message" in "Update CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md".

From the contribution guidelines:

Try not to pollute your pull request with unintended changes–keep them simple and small

There is (maybe) something to the intention of not piling on here, but this is all change and no clear intent.

Welcoming devlopers to gain or devote knowledge

That shouldn't be "devlopers", and "gain or devote" is as unqualified as its relation to "welcoming".

We continue in the theme of things from what is already in the CoC:

obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident

is clear, however ill devised it is. The contact form is e-mail without PGP(?)

Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.

And then the icing on the cake

maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership.

Where it is vague isn't in being an instrument to establish a higher domain of power, but it is forever vague in limiting it.
It all boils down to benevolent dictator anyway, except for how it is actually way worse.

[mantism]

As a newcomer to this repo, why is this PR still open? shouldn't it just get closed/rejected?

[comradekingu]

@mantism Maybe someone actually read the original that this breaks the licensing terms of, and understood it in terms of my critique.

There is nothing wrong with rules, so why this has to be called a CoC is beyond me.
Is conduct being codified for any particular reason?
If no pledge of allegiance is made, why have a code?

Harassment is of course illegal already, and there are rules nobody seems to read on GitHub already.
This is the only real problem:

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

This is professionalism over community, and there the authoritarian nature of CoCs shows its true colours.
Attempts to prohibit unacceptable text in a document like that should come as no surprise to anyone.

If someone can reasonably assume what is expected in a professional environment, how is that in any way different when it is in writing from reasonably expecting what to get reprimanded or banned for when it is not?
There is no incapable person helped, and there is no ill will avoided, only a blueprint to work from and exploit if one wants to do harm. Those escalations are usually more explicit, and it is what makes a CoC different from rules.

Strip away more and it would be a mantra. Bloat isn't good, and does nothing better.