Keep is snimple snupples

[comradekingu]

It can't be both "freedom-of-speech" and ~corporate professionalism above all.

• Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Nor does it promote well-being, not in the least because immutable characteristics are front and centre of its supposed jurisdiction where none is needed, and "humane" at that precludes shedding sexuality.

• The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances

Putting the letter of the law above the populace with no recourse I don't find agreeable, nor in the interest of humane as in humanity.

that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct

and certainly not if "political" isn't above board.

or political attacks

A system of required secrecy as the only hard premise

The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality

escalates conflict beyond the control of involved parties, and the whole thing is predicated on rosy language instating a not harmless, but superfluous power-structure to what is already required and present for any difference to be made. (The only thing backing "responsibility" is

may face

The actual implication of it working is predicated on someone being anti-social enough to do something warranting mention, but somehow at the same time perturbed by disobeying a text-file. That in turn spreads false security to those vulnerable enough to be convinced by it, and it is an open invitation for anti-social people to elevate their social status and control in a way that has no vested interest in the functional merit of any project that employs it.

---

The alternative only does what a code of conduct isn't, yet doesn't make flawed assumptions nor create a barrier of entry. Therefore a code of conduct is not necessary unless this suffices, nor has this particular one been updated in 4 years despite multiple and yet more authoritarian revisions to its name.

[aschrijver]

Thank you for your elaborate analysis of the CoC, appeciated! While the simple replacement appeals to me, the top-level awesome list prescribes having a CoC. It is part of 'awesome branding' and an inclusion criteria. The current one was a copy of the top-level one at the time. I will synchronise with that one, if there are changes made since.

[comradekingu]

This is just a cursory glance, it really has issues everywhere.

@aschrijver I can't find that it does. What https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/blob/main/contributing.md says is:

Please note that this project is released with a Contributor Code of Conduct. By participating in this project you agree to abide by its terms.

While the manifesto says "Pay attention to grammar"… I can't really say the particular application of which grants consistency or adherence…

Similarly, the CoC in question says "an individual is representing the project or its community" and "Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers." which it isn't(?)

Making a bunch of restrictions is not a "derivative work". If it relies on the actual CoC itself, that is on par for how vague some of it is. Precicely for how vague it is, it is authoritarian. It has zero place in something aiming to be considered ethical, because it relies on rank authoritarianism.

If "simple replacement appeals to me", dare I suggest the CoC was yet again upheld by no stronger conviction than "it was prescribed".

The irony of new variants being made and not used over 1.4 granting the "green light" by way of clicking a button is not lost on me. It is either failed bloat, or deprecated, but really it is both. I don't understand how you want to blindly adopt any changes made (there are none I think) in the "awesome" project, when it doesn't appear you considered this one to begin with.

Meanwhile, this alternative text-file doesn't produce fiascos, and I can and do write it from memory each time.

Edit: If you can replace the contact field with your own, doesn't that substitute its jurisdiction for your own application of sense? How are you then not the project leader? Does it not follow that you can opt to say it isn't representing your section if part of a bigger project? You are after all "responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior" as the project maintainer.

[aschrijver]

Thank you. You have convinced me on the merits of this change :)