One of the things I think is really innovative [1] about SQLite's code of conduct is that it's a one-way covenant. The developers are agreeing to act and engage

One of the things I think is really innovative [1] about SQLite's code of conduct is that it's a one-way covenant. The developers are agreeing to act and engage with the community in a certain way without expecting anything in return or enforcing any of their beliefs on others. The rules are also very clearly defined, even the ones I personally don't agree with. I think the new "Contributor Covenant" is a step backwards. It's pages and pages of text to say "don't be a jerk", and the rules are so poorly defined that it isn't much more precise than a one liner saying "don't be a jerk". There's lots of catch-alls like "... And any other unprofessional behavior is against the rules". You could stretch this to cover almost anything. Hell, I've worked in professional settings where wearing shorts was verboten, but I don't think open source projects should be policing how participants dress except in the most extreme circumstances (like if someone shows up to a convention naked when it isn't pre-planned as being a naturist event) I find it confounding that the the new covenant is described as being less vague when it relies on poorly defined terms like "community spaces" and "community leaders". What's a community space? Who are the community leaders? Idk, but I've seen a handful of cases these covenants have been weaponized against developers expressing their personal opinions in a context that has nothing to do with Github. [1]: I know calling it innovative is a bit ironic when most of it was written 1500 years ago, but it's innovative compared to other software projects. (Edited for grammar and to flesh out why I think the new covenant is vaguer despite the author's claim, unlike the old one with well-defined rules)