> The goals of the project are set by the core team; not by a moderation team enforcing some abitrary CoC. It's dishonest to publish a CoC that -- silently --

> The goals of the project are set by the core team; not by a moderation team enforcing some abitrary CoC. It's dishonest to publish a CoC that -- silently -- doesn't apply to those with power. Why does that matter? Don't forget that a language with a strong core team but no community of users, contributors, documenters, enthusiasts, etc., is hardly more than nothing -- people making specifications that aren't implemented and if implemented, not used. The purpose of a CoC is to set ground rules to allow the community around the language -- the community that must exist for the language to have any real value or purpose -- to grow as strong as possible. You're granting the core team all the power in rust, but they are kings of very little if people don't chose to adopt rust. Some people or companies may choose to invest -- or not invest -- in rust based at least partially on the code of conduct. Other people may choose to invest -- or not invest -- in rust based at least partially on their confidence in the long-term capability of the core team. Does "accountable to no one" instill that confidence? Also: you really are misunderstanding what the mod team did here. Resigning is a single-shot ploy. There's literally nothing left that they can do. Whether this is a "bad look" for them is entirely irrelevant. At this point the rust core team has to decide if they would prefer to more forward with or without a code of conduct, and whether they will be honest about it or not. The rest of us can watch and decide if/how we'd like to continue to participate with rust. Those making long term plans should watch especially carefully.