<p>Hi <a href="/r/golang" rel="nofollow">/r/golang</a>,</p>
<p>I've just submitted the second revision of the proposal for a Code of Conduct for our community.</p>
<p>Please take a look at the document here: <a href="https://golang.org/design/13073-code-of-conduct" rel="nofollow">https://golang.org/design/13073-code-of-conduct</a></p>
<p>A note on process:</p>
<p>A few months ago, when I started the original thread about the Code of Conduct, I was overwhelmed by the passionate responses it received. I tried to respond to all the issues that were raised, but in the chaos of a public forum it is hard to focus on specific concerns. Also, in a public forum the people who are most persistent tended to get the most attention, which strikes me as unfair to those who are less confident or tenacious.</p>
<p>That's why, when I sent out the proposal last week, I asked people to reply to me directly. I hoped that by corresponding with each person individually could better address their specific concerns. So far, more than 80 people have taken the time to send me their feedback directly. (I am sincerely grateful for their time and energy, thank you!) Some of the feedback was simply affirmative ("great job") and some was categorically negative("don't do this"), but most feedback raised specific issues with the proposal.Through those discussions I was able to zero in on those issues and amend the proposal to fix—or at least address—them.</p>
<p>But I can see that some people viewed this strategy as a disingenuous attempt to ignore community feedback and just push the CoC through regardless. That people saw it this way was a failure on my part.I hope it is clear that I <em>am</em> listening to everyone, even though it's not possible for me to agree with all voices.</p>
<p>In the interest of transparency and openness I would like to invite the community to discuss the revised proposal here in this thread. And, of course, those who feel more comfortable mailing me directly may do so.</p>
<p>Thank you,
Andrew</p>
<hr/>**评论：**<br/><br/>cartesian_bear: <pre><blockquote>
<p>In particular, respect differences of opinion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, <a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-nuts/hJHCAaiL0so/kG3BHV6QFfIJ" rel="nofollow">will Rob Pike finally "take a week off" from the mailing list?</a> ;)</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><p>Analyzing history is a good way of preparing for the future. Let's see how the person pushing this CoC handled this violation <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/hJHCAaiL0so/DVPM-hQ-tSEJ" rel="nofollow">at that time</a>.</p>
<p>"I know Rob. He was just goofing. You're wrong for feeling offended."</p>
<p>"You're in the minority, so you should be more careful when you speak."</p>
<p>"Let's drop this without resolving our differences and without reestablishing harmony."</p>
<p>Things will be so much better after he has a CoC to make him feel more empowered...</p></pre>dgryski: <pre><p>It's also possible with a clearer CoC Andrew's response will be different.</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><p>I too believe anything is possible.</p>
<p>Is there any reason in particular why you think a clearer CoC will alter his response?</p></pre>dgryski: <pre><p>For one, Andrew has three more years of experience to draw on. Also, with a clearer CoC, he could evaluate Rob's comment in <em>that</em> context. I also believe that Andrew is sincere enough that he <em>would</em> call out Rob for being a jerk on the list. Maybe not in public. Maybe earlier in the thread somebody <em>else</em> would have called out Rob as being inflammatory and not constructive. I can't change the past; I can't predict the future. But I do know that I want to be in a community where the standard of civility is higher than the general level on reddit.</p>
<p>That thread got derailed by Rob's comments. They didn't add to the technical discussion at hand. Maybe with a CoC Rob wouldn't have phrased his opinion that way in the first place.</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>Absolutely. I would definitely respond differently today.</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>Probably, yes.</p></pre>Abyxus: <pre><p>How does this CoC address those (in)famous incidents which happened in other communities:</p>
<ul>
<li>B writes a message on a social network site. This message contains a discrimination based on sexuality, religion, etc. For example "I live in R*<em>**a and I'm proud that g</em>* propaganda is forbidden by the law here".</li>
<li>B gets harassed by other members of community for posting the message above.</li>
</ul>
<p>Another example:</p>
<ul>
<li>B uses "he" somewhere in his code.</li>
<li>C tells B to change it to another word which C calls "gender-neutral".</li>
<li>B replies that it is not going to happen.</li>
<li>B gets mobbed by SJW.</li>
</ul></pre>enneff: <pre><p>In the latter case we'd just change the pronoun. No drama required.</p></pre>Abyxus: <pre><p>In that <a href="https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun" rel="nofollow">libuv case</a> the pronoun was changed, and it didn't prevent the drama. If such situation happened in Go community, would this CoC help with resolving it?</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>I don't think a CoC would cause or help to prevent drama in this case.</p></pre>YEPHENAS: <pre><blockquote>
<p>B writes a message on a social network site</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The CoC does not apply to random social network sites.</p>
<p>"Explicit enforcement of the Code of Conduct can only practically apply to the official forums operated by the Go project (“Go spaces”):</p>
<ul>
<li>the official Go GitHub projects,</li>
<li>Go project code reviews,</li>
<li>the #go-nuts IRC channel on Freenode,</li>
<li>the <a href="/r/golang" rel="nofollow">/r/golang</a> subreddit, and</li>
<li>the golang-nuts and golang-dev mailing lists operated on Google Groups."</li>
</ul></pre>Abyxus: <pre><p>That's where the CoC shall be enforced. This could also mean that if you violate the CoC outside of "the Go spaces", you'll get banned on the Go spaces.</p>
<p>The CoC proposal says "The Code of Conduct applies generally. If you participate [...], you are expected to observe the Code of Conduct". This sound kinda vague and can easily be interpreted as "you are expected to observe the CoC everywhere".</p></pre>enneff: <pre><blockquote>
<p>This could also mean that if you violate the CoC outside of "the Go spaces", you'll get banned on the Go spaces.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There was a clause that said this in the previous version of the document, but it was removed. There is some discussion of this in the 'Rationale' section.</p></pre>Abyxus: <pre><p>It doesn't look that the rationale section is a part CoC, so while things stated there has some historical value, they are non-binding.</p>
<p>Basically the CoC just doesn't help with the issue.</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>Correct, the CoC does not help with issues outside the spaces that the CoC covers.</p></pre>porkyminch: <pre><p>Yeah, can we not? Code of Conducts are a nice way to <em>create</em> divides in communities. Go is a fun to use language, I don't want the community behind it to end up like what we're seeing in node.js for instance, where a guy was just banned from the repo for posting an eggplant.</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><p>link?</p></pre>Fwippy: <pre><p>It looks like it was this: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/SL7UeZj.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/SL7UeZj.jpg</a></p>
<p>They posted just the eggplant emoji on a discussion entitled "inclusivity," it's pretty obvious that they were trolling. There's not really any alternate interpretation to even give them the benefit of the doubt there - it wasn't on a discussion about, say, favorite foods.</p></pre>gohacker: <pre><p><a href="http://i.imgur.com/u0r6olA.jpg" rel="nofollow">A better CoC.</a></p></pre>EdiX: <pre><p>This whole Code of Conduct thing is really depressing. All the feedback seems to be completely ignored and the same flaws get just persist in each version.</p>
<p>When it was first proposed on the mailing list people noted how it was unfeasible and hipocritical (because microaggressions aren't an objective thing, they are very much subjective perception) to extend the Coc outside the official spaces: if applied fairly this would mean that to contribute to go one must never comment on anything concerning religion, sexuality, gender or politics in any way shape or form, anywhere for all their life.</p>
<p>Now the Coc applies <em>generally. If you participate in or contribute to the Go ecosystem in any way</em>. Fuck this bullshit.</p>
<p>Of course no one really believes this is ever going to be applied in a fair way: if I criticize a feminist it's going to be my fault for being offensive with "microaggressions", if I get annoyed by someone making a snide remark about "white dudes" it's my fault for being "fragile" and actually, I'm the offensive one.</p>
<p>All of this is really obvious to me, as I grew up in a country with catholic majority where anything about atheism and gay rights was shut down for a long time because it was "offensive". But unfortunately this whole thing is being pushed by people in the SF bubble that never had their worldview actually challenged by the hegemony.</p>
<p>I contribute to a couple of high profile go projects and this makes me want to drop everything and walk away and I can't even say which projects those are because I don't want the SJW mob hunting me down throughout social media.</p></pre>enneff: <pre><blockquote>
<p>Now the Coc applies generally. If you participate in or contribute to the Go ecosystem in any way. Fuck this bullshit.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Great point, actually. We removed the other wording about enforcement outside Go spaces, but we didn't update that sentence. I've just changed it to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you participate in or contribute to the Go ecosystem in any way, you are encouraged to follow the Code of Conduct while doing so.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I hope that makes it more clear.</p>
<p>I just want to point out that you are really just assuming the worst, and that I don't agree with your characterization here:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Of course no one really believes this is ever going to be applied in a fair way: if I criticize a feminist it's going to be my fault for being offensive with "microaggressions", if I get annoyed by someone making a snide remark about "white dudes" it's my fault for being "fragile" and actually, I'm the offensive one.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you're criticizing the <em>person</em> in a Go space then you are off topic. If you are talking about "white dudes" you are also off topic. I can imagine that there might be particular threads (such as this one) or meetings where such topics are appropriate, but in general they are not.</p></pre>Andail_Chanter: <pre><blockquote>
<p>We removed the other wording about enforcement outside Go spaces</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At this point it's just about 'Get the CoC in, and make the changes we want later.' No one would make a bet against this language finding its way back in.</p>
<p>Also, you're using the term 'microaggression' in a way that it isn't commonly used. An abbreviated list from University of California:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Where are you from?
Wow. How did you become so good in math?
When I look at you, I don't see color.
America is the land of opportunity.
Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.
Why are you always angry?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>from <a href="http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf</a></p>
<p>Granted, most of these examples have little relevance in a group of coders, but who knows what crazy stuff you guys will come up with that <em>is</em> relevant.</p>
<p>Also, there seems to be a presumption that everyone is already in agreement about the need for a CoC, and that we're all just arguing over details. That presumption might be a bit hasty.</p></pre>enneff: <pre><blockquote>
<p>At this point it's just about 'Get the CoC in, and make the changes we want later.' No one would make a bet against this language finding its way back in.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wow, that is uncharitable. I've corresponded with more than 100 people in the community, most of them over the specifics of the CoC. It would be hugely disrespectful to them for me to just reverse the many changes I have made as a result of those conversations. I just wouldn't do that, although I suspect there's no way I can convince you of that.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Also, you're using the term 'microaggression' in a way that it isn't commonly used. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think so. The definition used in the doc came from Derald Wing Sue (the author of the PDF you linked) and the example of a microaggression in the proposal is in the same vein as the examples listed under "Ascription of Intelligence" in that PDF.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Also, there seems to be a presumption that everyone is already in agreement about the need for a CoC, and that we're all just arguing over details. That presumption might be a bit hasty.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of all the people I've corresponded with, a minority are against a CoC. If you look at the initial public golang-nuts thread about it, most people were positive about it. I don't see that it's possible for everyone to be in agreement over a topic so controversial. I do think a lot of the complaints (such as your unfair suspicions here) are blown way out of proportion. Furthermore, this is something that the core Go contributors feel that we need to continue to run the project well. I took all those factors into account when preparing this proposal.</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><blockquote>
<p>this is something that the core Go contributors feel that we need to continue to run the project well</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Frankly, I think this is the best reason. We all benefit by the contributions made to the Go project(s).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Of all the people I've corresponded with, a minority are against a CoC</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This statement seems loaded to me ('a CoC' vs 'this CoC' and limited sample group).</p>
<p>After all of the revisions are made and a final document is settled, do you intend to poll en masse all the Go Spaces that it would affect?</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>That statement was made in response to "there seems to be a presumption that everyone is already in agreement about the need for a CoC".</p>
<p>While I'm doing my best to represent the views of the community as a whole, it's ultimately not a democratic process.</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><blockquote>
<p>it's ultimately not a democratic process</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So should we expect this CoC proposal to deviate from the standard proposal process that involves the following?:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Once comments and revisions on the design doc wind down, there is a final discussion about the proposal.
<ul>
<li>The goal of the final discussion is to reach agreement on the next step: (1) accept or (2) decline.</li>
<li>The discussion is expected to be resolved in a timely manner.</li>
<li>In Go development historically, a lack of agreement means decline.</li>
<li>If there is disagreement about whether there is agreement, adg@ is the arbiter.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</blockquote></pre>enneff: <pre><p>Yeah, I expect it will be different. Although note that the usual proposal process isn't democratic either.</p>
<p>The discussions are already happening here and on golang-nuts. There's no need to rehash it again on the issue tracker.</p></pre>tv64738: <pre><blockquote>
<p>Here are some links to previous discussions and articles that discuss the topic.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Please beef up the FAQ a lot. What is there currently is nowhere near enough to pacify "an abrasive newcomer". Perhaps even include a place where such discussion <em>should</em> be directed.</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>Yeah that's a great suggestion. We have been working on improving the wiki, and need to direct visitors to the FAQ there.</p></pre>dominikh: <pre><blockquote>
<p>An abrasive newcomer, a pithy response</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Does anybody reach out to B because of his rude message?</p></pre>lkjhgfds2: <pre><p>As someone who had a lot of criticism for the original proposal, I'd like to say well done. It seems that you really have listened to feedback and this version is much improved over the original.</p></pre>blake: <pre><p>I totally agree. I was critical of portions of the original document (and told Andrew via email), and he clearly took everyone's feedback to make a better document. I'm pleasantly surprised, and I kind of feel bad for my cynicism now.</p></pre>ar1819: <pre><p>Agreed. I like that the "outside" clause has been removed. And several other well done changes. </p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><p>Under this proposal, would the CoC team take action against Dave Cheney for his violation of its prohibition against</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Discrimination based on gender, race, </p>
</blockquote>
<p>?</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>GopherCon are free to choose and enforce whatever CoC they like.</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><p>Sure, but the current proposal also says, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you participate in or contribute to the Go ecosystem in any way, you are expected to observe the Code of Conduct</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Dave is an active member of golang-nuts. Therefore, according to the proposal, he is expected to observe the Code of Conduct. The CoC prohibits racial/gender discrimination. He has failed to abide by that.</p></pre>Andail_Chanter: <pre><p>Backstory, I believe. <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/3rtdsb/gophercon_publicly_discriminated_white_men/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/3rtdsb/gophercon_publicly_discriminated_white_men/</a></p></pre>_ak: <pre><blockquote>
<p>The CoC prohibits racial/gender discrimination.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since when is trying to even out the representation of underrepresented groups a form of discrimination?</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><p>I think things like MadeWithCode.com are the solution. You fix the underrepresentation though outreach programs to even out the applicant pool. What GopherCon did by specifically targeting a gender/racial group to be biased against is distasteful.</p>
<p>If you still hold your original argument that discriminating against racial/gender majorities is good, what makes you think this way? Is it simply a "the ends justify the means" argument?</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><p>The complaint revolves around the methodology employed. </p>
<p>Specifically, in this instance, the individual choose a race and gender to discriminate against. A better methodology (that targets no racial/gender groups from the onset) is a quota system whereby you attempt to construct a representative sample. </p>
<p>However, even that system of fostering diversity is still flawed as pointed out by the ESL non-USA white male who spoke out in the last thread.</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><blockquote>
<p>GopherCon are free to choose and enforce whatever CoC they like</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They would be if they did not involve themselves in Go Spaces. Brian Ketelsen has posted "on behalf of the GopherCon team" in golang-nuts, so under the proposed CoC, GopherCon would be expected to not engage in racial/gender discrimination.</p></pre>ar1819: <pre><p>As someone who was supportive about the original idea, but really skeptical about the original implementation, I can definitely say that right now it looks much better and much more mature, which is more important.
Alto, I would really like to have "non public" clause - that the any kind of public shaming\or trying to gather a "mob" by A for breaking any of these rules by B, will be violation of this CoC (penalties included). If A has a problem with B, and it requires involvement of CoC group - the B should also be protected from "public outrage".</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>The doc does say:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you encounter a conduct-related issue, you should report it to the Code of Conduct Working Group using the process described below. <strong>Do not</strong> post about the issue publicly or try to rally sentiment against a particular individual or group.</p>
</blockquote></pre>ar1819: <pre><p>The issue will be nevertheless discussed and at least noted. That's good, because issues should be targeted and resolved. But at the same time I would like to hear what happens, for example - when someone contact CoC group about violation (this can happen, people make mistakes), but at the same time they also start a "twitter war" or something like that.</p>
<p><strong>Do not</strong>, doesn't explain what will happen if <strong>you will.</strong> Or at least, what steps CoC group will take...</p>
<p>Thing is - that <em>opal case</em> feeling is still there. It destroyed a lot of nerves and spent too much of people's energy, which could be used in much more productive way.</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>We made a deliberate decision to avoid trying to police what people do outside official Go spaces. If someone tried to start a flamewar in an official space then they're derailing and being uncharitable, at the least.</p>
<p>I'd prefer to wait and see if/when anything like this happens, rather than try to preempt it. It's not clear what changes one could make that would reasonably help in such a situation. Presumably people would only start a real public flame war if they felt they weren't being served by the CoC.</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><blockquote>
<p>We made a deliberate decision to avoid trying to police what people do outside official Go spaces</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Then why does the proposal say?:</p>
<p>"If you participate in or contribute to the Go ecosystem in any way, you are expected to follow the Code of Conduct."</p></pre>mwholt: <pre><p>You've got a good point.</p>
<p>The next sentence talks about how <em>enforcement</em> can only happen on the official Go venues, but the phrase "you are expected to follow the Code of Conduct" is ambiguous; it is too open-ended. "You are expected to follow the CoC..." where? Anywhere? Maybe it could be amended to say that it is only expected where the CoC is enforced.</p>
<p>This won't imply, of course, that good, respectable behavior isn't socially acceptable outside anywhere the CoC applies. It just means that the CoC isn't trying to police you outside of its relevant venues.</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p><em>(Copied from another comment of mine elsewhere in this discussion. Replying because you made the same point.)</em></p>
<p>Great point, actually. We removed the other wording about enforcement outside Go spaces, but we didn't update that sentence. I've just changed it to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you participate in or contribute to the Go ecosystem in any way, you are encouraged to follow the Code of Conduct while doing so.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I hope that makes it more clear.</p></pre>mwholt: <pre><p>Yep, looks good!</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><p>Thanks for the copy.</p>
<p>I reviewed the CoC for similar inconsistencies. The "Go Space" of "Go project code reviews" is ambiguous.</p>
<p>Does this mean code reviews on the Official Go codebase, or any project written in Go?</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>Thanks. It means official Go code reviews. I've tidied up and linkified that list to make it unambiguous.</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><p>The links were a great idea. <em>Much</em> clearer. </p></pre>mixedCase_: <pre><p>This is a much better approach from what I see. Sets the limits right while leaving the specifics to be dealt with on a case by case basis. In other words: lays down "common sense" on paper for those engaging in trollish behavior.</p>
<p>Good job on the proposal Andrew (and everyone who chimed in). While I believe code of conducts are unnecessary, an approach like this I can definitely get behind.</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><p>The part I have trouble getting behind:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>A permanent or temporary ban from some or all Go spaces (mailing lists, IRC, etc.).</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>While I can see how this might be necessary when dealing with certain psychopaths, I think those instances will be so rare that the cost of including it in the CoC outweighs the benefit.</p>
<p>I'd rather see the CoC be one of inclusion, and not one of exclusion.</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>I think it would be a bit disingenuous not to mention that this is a possibility, even if only in extreme circumstances. I did go out of my way to mention that it's an avenue of last resort:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Note that the goal of the Code of Conduct and the Working Group is to resolve conflicts in the most harmonious way possible. We hope that in most cases issues may be resolved through polite discussion and mutual agreement. Bannings and other forceful measures are to be employed only as a last resort.</p>
</blockquote></pre>enneff: <pre><p>A little more background: when I consulted with various other community leaders about the CoC, they without exception underscored the importance of having a solid enforcement policy. I'm inclined to take the advice, even if it reads a little strongly. On the other hand, it should be reassuring to anyone that files a complaint to know that we take them seriously.</p></pre>atomi_: <pre><p>I posted some thoughts that might be useful <a href="http://atomi.github.io/2015/11/17/youre-not-welcome-here/" rel="nofollow">link</a> . I think a hard enforcement policy is important but only after you have a robust CoC. Already you have revisions and additions. You will likely have more as things progress.</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><blockquote>
<p>underscored the importance of having a solid enforcement policy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can have a solid enforcement policy without threatening exclusion from the get-go.</p>
<p>Has anyone been forcefully excluded to-date? Have there been instances where you thought it was appropriate to forcefully exclude someone?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>it should be reassuring to anyone that files a complaint</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And concerning to anyone on which a complaint is filled. A CoC complaint process should be about resolving differences, not harassing another member with threat of exclusion.</p></pre>enneff: <pre><blockquote>
<p>Has anyone been forcefully excluded to-date? Have there been instances where you thought it was appropriate to forcefully exclude someone?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, there have been a few people over the years who have been disruptive and rude and did not stop when asked. Eventually they were banned.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A CoC complaint process should be about resolving differences, not harassing another member with threat of exclusion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, I totally agree. And I think I have been very clear about this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Note that the goal of the Code of Conduct and the Working Group is to resolve conflicts in the most harmonious way possible.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and also:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>With that said, a healthy community must allow for disagreement and debate. The Code of Conduct is not a mechanism for people to silence others with whom they disagree.</p>
</blockquote></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><p>More to the point, I'd rather see the CoC be inclusionary only until a bad actor forces a revision. </p></pre>postman_: <pre><blockquote>
<p>people in the Go community (“Gophers”)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a shitty name, don't force it on me.</p></pre>IntellectualReserve: <pre><blockquote>
<p>Moderators are held to a higher standard than other community members.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What is this higher standard? Will moderators be expected to adhere to the CoC outside of Go Spaces as well?</p></pre>hipone: <pre><p>I'm really interested in outcome of that route.</p></pre>chickencheesebagel: <pre><p>I am against any CoC for fear of a slippery slope turning it into the nodejs community which bans people for posting an image of an eggplant because it was "misogynistic and triggering". Keep this shit far away.</p></pre>enneff: <pre><p>What are pictures of eggplants doing in programming communities anyway? Obviously that's not all there is to the story.</p>
<p>I'm not familiar with the incident, but I know that for many people the eggplant emoji is shorthand for penis. If the guy was posting it in an official forum with that intent, it's not "just an eggplant". It's off topic at best and inappropriate at worst. But, like I said, I don't know the specifics.</p></pre>
