Are we worried about the fact of there being a code of conduct at all? Or about the contents of it?
If you had read the previous posts, you'd know it is the latter.
We must not let hateful facts ruin a nice narrative, eh? 
Well, your previous posts; I can't say the same for the earliest posts in this thread. Hence my seemingly knee-jerk reaction, at least.
The conservative / RWA / various other aspects -- whatever you want to call it -- the mindset reacts to the existence of rules
on principle, since, that's it, that's the name, to "conserve" existing values whatever those might be, regardless whether they're understood to any degree, or proven to be good or bad; the strategy is to resist change on the assumption that it's "always" for the worse. It's a victimized mindset: "I've altered the rules, pray I don't alter them further" -- what could be more chilling? But in particular, that
this reaction is the complete reaction; not only is there no effort to understand what the changes might mean, but there is an active rejection to understand those rules. This plays out at-large in, you know, about half of US politics at the moment, but it's based on an individual response, personality type, and is psychological rather than political in nature. The politics is the consequence of the existence of this psychology.
Whereas, given a deeper understanding of the political process (in the abstract -- of the group, the organization of the project), what's relevant is not some random text, or even a code of rules per se, but the process of determining and adjudicating them. That is, how many people are involved relative to those in the overall project, how closely they are involved, and how much influence they have on it.
Words don't matter, it's what people do with them that matters. A project ruled by one or few iron-fisted leaders will likely take a strong authoritarian position, while one driven by frequent discussions and polls will likely take a democratic position. Neither of which is necessarily a problem -- at least for project-scale groups like these, it's possible to have the "enlightened, benevolent dictator" type, with a more strict hierarchical structure that reduces management burden on others. But it's also very possible to have the opposite case, a manipulating, controlling, gaslighting dictator who allows no questioning of their authority or project vision. (And, it seems, the latter case is exponentially more likely as scale goes up, hence almost all nation-scale examples, with a few arguable historical exceptions.)
Anyway, that's where that's coming from. Note I'm not accusing anyone's psychology. The lack of discussion in the initial responses might be some shared understanding [that I lack], but it seems to fit into the above mold much better (and, at most, hinting at psychology).
Tim
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
