Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

Skepticism of Heavy CoCs

• Many argue detailed, legalistic CoCs are “tools for troublemakers” that scare away contributors, empower rules‑lawyering, and add bureaucracy without preventing bad behavior.
• Several treat a long CoC as a red flag: sign of power‑hungry activists, HR‑style corporate culture, or low‑trust environments trying to replace relationships with legalese.
• Some see any written CoC as unnecessary where “don’t be a jerk” and normal moderation suffice; they prefer benevolent‑dictator models or simple, informal norms.

Weaponization, Selective Enforcement, and Politics

• Multiple anecdotes describe CoCs being used to oust ideological opponents, legitimize petty disputes (e.g., over terminology like “master”), or pressure maintainers into adopting specific political stances.
• Commenters note selective enforcement: allies’ violations ignored, opponents punished. A written text is seen as extra “attack surface” for bad‑faith actors.
• Others say CoCs are sometimes pushed as a way to install new power structures inside projects, especially by people with little technical contribution.

Arguments in Favor of CoCs

• Supporters emphasize CoCs as a signal of safety and inclusion, especially for contributors from marginalized groups who have experienced harassment elsewhere.
• They argue written norms help newcomers know “what kind of space this is,” reduce ambiguity, and give moderators a defensible basis for bans.
• Some report that in large communities (e.g., meetups, wikis, big distros) formal CoCs were what finally empowered organizers to deal with abusive members.

Contentious Boundaries: “Politics” vs. “Basic Rights”

• A major fault line: whether excluding openly bigoted or “eliminationist” views (e.g., about trans people) is neutral community protection or importing partisan politics.
• One side says “who counts as a bigot” quickly becomes a political weapon; the other says allowing such views itself endangers contributors and makes projects unwelcoming.

Size, Simplicity, and Trust

• Many distinguish “heavy” from “light” CoCs: short, readable rules (“be respectful,” “no harassment,” basic logistics) are widely seen as workable; multi‑page, legalistic templates are not.
• Several note that in the end everything hinges on who enforces norms and whether they are trusted; no CoC can fix dishonest or cowardly leadership.