That was a good idea. Opal now seem to be getting back to coding under a CoC which lacks that clause. It looks like the clause was hammered out during the Opal

That was a good idea. Opal now seem to be getting back to coding under a CoC which lacks that clause. It looks like the clause was hammered out during the Opal discussion and the version on the covenant website was updated but not the master branch of the covenant git repo, so when Opal grabbed the standard CoC they got version 1.0 without the new "Elia clause" in it. I don't know whether that was luck or foresight, but I see people are now pushing Opal to adopt for v1.1: "This is a necessary change, version 1.0 of the contributor covenant fails to address the situation which started this: the gross misconduct of one of your core maintainers spewing a veritable mountain of hate and ignorance about LGBT people on a social media platform where he constantly ties himself to your project and refers to himself as a core maintainer." Misdirection like that doesn't lessen my worry that the clause is there to open OSS to bullying from outside. Having read what the tweats actually said, it has me nodding with rewqfdsa that "this isn't happening in good faith" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9743357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9743357). Even with cool heads deciding what counts as "representing the project", the clause lets outside mobs gum up a project with drama until the contributors learn to self-censor in all aspects of life. When some poor maintainer doesn't give the "represents" ruling that the twitter mob desires, that person in the middle will start being personally smeared all over the internet as "supporting a mountain of hate and ignorance about LGBT people" etc in an effort to make them relent. So good idea for asking, v1.1 Code of Conduct is looking like a submarine poison pill. It's a shame nobody will read closed issues (locked too).