This is common anti-diversity rhetoric and a common point of confusion for a lot of folks. Let me try to explain it.
There is a real, tangible question as to whether a piece of software can solve a problem well if the people who built it are a homogenous group. Diversity breeds innovation and lack of diversity leads to products that usually cause more harm than good.
Having a CoC protects people who are typically minoritized and abused by the majoritized group. Enforcing a CoC ensures that everyone can contribute to a piece of software, which in turn creates better software.
In the same way a linter is essential to keep up code quality standards, a CoC is essential for enforcing quality standards on human interactions.
There are no "real, tangible" questions about the ability of software to solve problems aside from the software actually solving the problem. The software offered either provides a solution or it doesn't. Being an all-female software team, say, developing a framework like Deno has no bearing on whether it can be used by men.
What exactly would be the code paradigms used in such a framework, written by an homogeneous group like women, that would prevent men from fully implementing the framework?
I'm going to admit I'm not following the logic with that.
Now, if when you say "homogeneous" you're talking about the whole team having very similar thoughts and ideas, I could see the logic. However, unless you got very good evidence to validate the claim that the whole team has the same train of thought and values, this sounds like baseless assumptions.
If you mean "homogeneous" in the sense of arbitrary physical and personal traits (gender, romantic preferences, etc), I don't get what that would have to do with the team having a diverse spectrum of views and values.
I'm still not sure I understand the real significance of a CoC. Its not like its law, nothing holds ANYBODY to uphold it.
I don't really see what would be wrong with, I guess, a simple CoC that just says something like:
This is common anti-diversity rhetoric and a common point of confusion for a lot of folks. Let me try to explain it.
There is a real, tangible question as to whether a piece of software can solve a problem well if the people who built it are a homogenous group. Diversity breeds innovation and lack of diversity leads to products that usually cause more harm than good.
Having a CoC protects people who are typically minoritized and abused by the majoritized group. Enforcing a CoC ensures that everyone can contribute to a piece of software, which in turn creates better software.
In the same way a linter is essential to keep up code quality standards, a CoC is essential for enforcing quality standards on human interactions.
This is goobledygook.
There are no "real, tangible" questions about the ability of software to solve problems aside from the software actually solving the problem. The software offered either provides a solution or it doesn't. Being an all-female software team, say, developing a framework like Deno has no bearing on whether it can be used by men.
What exactly would be the code paradigms used in such a framework, written by an homogeneous group like women, that would prevent men from fully implementing the framework?
I'm going to admit I'm not following the logic with that.
Now, if when you say "homogeneous" you're talking about the whole team having very similar thoughts and ideas, I could see the logic. However, unless you got very good evidence to validate the claim that the whole team has the same train of thought and values, this sounds like baseless assumptions.
If you mean "homogeneous" in the sense of arbitrary physical and personal traits (gender, romantic preferences, etc), I don't get what that would have to do with the team having a diverse spectrum of views and values.
I'm still not sure I understand the real significance of a CoC. Its not like its law, nothing holds ANYBODY to uphold it.
I don't really see what would be wrong with, I guess, a simple CoC that just says something like:
Yes. Some common sense.
It's a pity that we bring our own personal hurt and pain, and cover it in pretend help.