I’ve been overjoyed at the adoption of a code of conduct, but personally, after having had very bad interactions with member of the moderation team, where they unequivocally treated me against the terms laid out in this code of conduct, and without any sort of transparency as what happened to the member that did treat me this way, I also have concerns.
With this is mind, I do have to agree that there is an accountability issue. As much as I am glad that we finally have a code of conduct, as much as I don’t think there has been any lines crossed in the adoption of this code of conduct that shouldn’t have been crossed, I still have to point out that there are voices on both sides here calling for more transparency into the process.
At my most cynical, I fear without this transparency, the code of conduct will be little more than for show. For the community to be able to hold the moderation team accountable, we need more insight into their process.
At the same this, we need this insight in a way that doesn’t put any potential victims at risk.
And even if this accountability technically exists, having to read through several RFCs to find out the details isn’t sufficient, without discoverability they don’t exist.
And yes, the lack of insight into whether or not a person who treated me intolerably is still part of the moderation team does heavily discourage my continued participation in the project. Since said member asked what I even do for NixOS, I’d like to put this into context.
In October, I reviewed 160 nixpkgs PRs and opened 43 nixpkgs PRs, of which 37 where merged, and 3 still are on hold, as I have little intention of finishing them.
In November, I reviewed 4 PRs and opened 5 PRs, so far, mostly just for my own software releases.
I’m personally probably permanently burned after this bad interaction, but hopefully you can pull yourself together so the next person isn’t.