I think "agree" in this context means to agree to follow the rules of that setting, not necessarily that you endorse those rules in general. For example, if you are a smoker in a non-smoking area you agree not to smoke while in that area, but you do not agree not to smoke at all. Or if you are in a vegan restaurant you will agree to eat vegan, but that does not make you actually a vegan yourself.
On Sunday, 4 November 2018 10:15:58 CET Mark H Weaver wrote: > Hi, > > I've decided to withdraw my objections to the policy of requiring that > project participants agree to our CoC. > > I read the language of the CoC again more carefully, looking to produce > a realistic scenario of a person with legitimate but unpopular political > views being discriminated against by this requirement. Ultimately, I > failed to find any realistic example that I wish to defend. > > I no longer believe that agreeing to our CoC implies declaring agreement > with it. I think I jumped to conclusions too quickly here, partly based > on an unusually strong interpretation of the word "agree". > > I've also been worrying about possible abuses that I now suspect (hope?) > would be unlikely to hold up in a court. For example, I worried that if > participation in the project is taken to imply agreement with our CoC, > that by a natural extrapolation, someone who contributes a single fix > but is otherwise uninvolved with the project could be legally held to be > bound by our CoC. That's thinking like a mathematician, where I should > have been trying to think like a lawyer. > > So, I'm withdrawing my objections. Sorry for the stress. > > Mark
