> The CoC - any CoC - requires that all members agree on a telos. That wasn't necessary before
Does it though? All it says to me, that whilst working towards this "telos", do it in a respectful manner.
Does it though? All it says to me, that whilst working towards this "telos", do it in a respectful manner.
Instead, all I'm trying to say is that while you see it in that light, others don't. Those others must make a decision - accept the change, quietly leave the project, or use the legal means at their disposal to disassociate themselves and damage the project in the process. That decision wasn't required of them before the CoC was created.
It does more than that. It allows for a path forward/establishes a slippery slope. Now a group that is most earnestly behind the implementation of the CoC to now point to this as a tipping point where the tyranny of the majority is accepted (and can now make modifications since you already agreed to a CoC, what are some nomic modifications to you?). This runs counter to the existing, unstable hierarchy.
Why don't we all just be people, accept that our best foot is not always the forward one, and accept positive contribution wherever it can be found.