> It's purely a signaling issue, the text of the CoC is completely irrelevant.
That's what I am thinking. Why not signal that "yeah these issues exist, we took 10 minutes to create some guide and put it on Github or some place". I understand if it wasn't already done, and its usefulness has to be weighed against the time it takes to do it. But it was already done. Just approve it and move on. Why drive-by and throw -1's out of the window at it.
RE signaling issue - those people who are opposed to CoC are reacting because the CoC trend did not appeared from nowhere - it's the result of the SJW narrative that's been spreading around the Internet. So by accepting the CoC they feel they're legitimizing (what they perceive as) the culture of outrage and censorship that hides beneath the talk of preventing abuse.
See the original proposal in the mailing list. The maintainer drafted the CoC contents. Shared the link. Asked people what they thought. A lot of them simply replied back with -1. Some explained their choice, but a lot didn't.
I would guess because it can become dangerous to one's career to explain in these circumstances but they believe it to be a bad thing. -1 is a vote. The more words you put down the easier it is the interpret what you say in the worst possible way.
Heck, following the wrong person on Twitter gets you on a ban list, so expressing opposition at all should be taken seriously.
The explosive anger at the Linux Code of Conflict betrays that this fight has been less over needing clear rules as it is the need of some people to force their particular set of rules in as many places as possible.
