Gergo Tisza <gtisza at wikimedia.org> wrote:
I'd still like the understand what the assumed
harm is. Is this strictly a
moral issue, where you want to avoid giving misleading information, but
otherwise that information would be harmless? Or a liability issue, where
your clients think that working on / using a CoC-covered extension makes
it
more likely that they get sued or publicly attacked?
Or do you think you
might work with clients who might be deterred because they do development
in ways that violate the CoC, and would be unwilling to change that? Or
some clients might boycott such extensions for political reasons?
If I can put words in your mouth, it sounds, based on the specific examples
you give, like your real question is: how would I (and the people I work
with) feel about having the scope of the Code of Conduct be expanded to
match what CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md says? If so, that's a fair question, but I'd
rather not answer it in this thread - I've been trying to keep this
discussion focused on a few basic factual questions (is the CoC file
accurate? Is it mandatory?), and even that has led to a pretty wide-ranging
and heated discussion. So I'd rather not add another very big topic into
the mix. It might make sense to create a separate discussion for that
topic, though.
-Yaron