I am in general very pro code-of-conduct. Still, this call to build something better has interesting thoughts in it https://shiromarieke.github.io/coc.html
But I'm not sure what something better would be yet, so ATM I think having a CoC is best
@cwebber That post has some wonky logic. E.g., a requirement interpreted as virtue signaling ("checklist" section) instead of genuine intent but failed implementation. A solution there is to work to fix the implementation. But if you see the requirement as disingenuous then where does that leave you?
Likewise with the "Don't Hit On The Students" section. If you see the intent as removing a freedom rather than making a bright-line for the unaware or malicious, then how do you progress?
@cwebber Broad CoC that's very clear (e.g., has examples) with leeway for interpretation.
My experience is that hard rules are brittle and will be rules-lawyered by people seeking to take advantage of the system. Requirements to have X witnesses, etc.
In the end, the basic question always comes down to: do you trust the people organizing the event / moderating the space / etc. If so, a good CoC with good process and good feedback loop goes far. If not, they're often just a cover.
@jond I think that matches my current feelings on things.
@jond I don't agree with all of the post. Maybe giving many clear examples of what is not allowed is important. As I said, I'm not sure what's better, hence why I continue to make use of broad CoCs in my projects.
It could be that broad CoCs with specific examples are the best answer? I'm not sure.