This is an excellent question, and I struggle to answer it. Part of why I don't trust the "Code of Conduct" things is because of how they started off -- the de

This is an excellent question, and I struggle to answer it. Part of why I don't trust the "Code of Conduct" things is because of how they started off -- the desire to "protect marginalized people's safety over privileged people's comfort" is inherently prejudiced. Who decides who is privileged and who is marginalized? What this boils down to is there are favored people to which the rules do not apply. Although the language is no longer there, in many instances the result is the same. See the aforementioned Node TSC drama. But none of that is listed in the Contributor Covenant, which Ehmke authored. Version 2.1 pledges to make participation a "harassment free experience for everyone". As a software maintainer, how can I make good on that pledge? How can I arbitrate disputes between members? Especially when this involves conduct outside of git, and with sensitive users who consider many innocuous things as harassment? But furthermore, WHY should I arbitrate members conduct? I have enough on my plate just writing software. Now I have to decide who is right in a "he/him said, they/xir said", and decide who gets voted off the island? You'll note that I have referred to Ehmke without pronouns, and this is intentional. While I do not wish to be offensive, I can't use Ehmke's pronouns in good conscience. According to one version of the Stack Overflow guidelines on pronoun usage, this constitutes harassment. I firmly disagree -- harassment is "you call me a woman, or I will have you removed from the project". As Ehmke said, this is a political document. But politics does not belong in software development.