3 ms·

That seems to be a blatant mischaracterization: > Scope: > This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when an individual is of

That seems to be a blatant mischaracterization: > Scope: > This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/ https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_con... What's your motivation here?

thaneross 4y ago
Up to version 1.3 the covenant didn't have a section limiting scope. 1.4 introduced it along with a loophole: > Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers. Eg, if you say something the maintainers don't like on your personal Twitter, all they need to say is "you're representing the project in a bad light" and it's fair game to ban you. Then in version 2.0 the text you quote appears, but changes > This Code of Conduct applies within all project spaces to > This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces but never defines what community spaces are. Is your personal Twitter account a community space? Well, once again that's up to the maintainers to decide. It's the same loophole as 1.4 but more cleverly disguised.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  Have you raised your concern with anyone who can do anything about it? In any case, I fail to see how this is any worse than any other project. Do you expect some sort of due process before you're banned from any random OSS project? I wouldn't. If you don't like it, you can fork the project. That's how it works.