Codes of conduct all feature worthiness being assessed by a small group of special individuals who then declare judgement without rationale. There are competin

Codes of conduct all feature worthiness being assessed by a small group of special individuals who then declare judgement without rationale. There are competing political systems to that one. The CoC enthusiasts are (likely to be) based in democratic systems so ignorance is not their reason for choosing this structure. A couple of groups I'm involved with have gone down the mandatory code of conduct route. I do not feel safer with a mechanism for summary execution in place. Specifically if I disagree with one of the chosen, they can solve that disagreement by excommunication. Thus when one of them spews insane nonsense the project tends to take damage instead of discussing saner alternatives. Worse, the connections of friendship / nepotism can be hard to detect from outside the inner circle, so disagreeing with anyone might be game over. Thus the system rots. But at least it gave power to the few for a period of time. My primary takeaway from this particular case is that Tim seems more reasonable than the governing board so I'm less likely to use Python in future - both because squashing discussion usually leads to technical decay and because the project as a whole looks more likely to implode over time.