I think you are focusing too much on the "pledge" part. Submitting a patch is an informal process and I doubt anyone is going to hold it up against you in a court. This is just an instance of using fancy words to sound important.
People's real grievances with the CC are that it polices people outside the project as well (simply abiding by the rules on the mailing list and IRC is not enough, according to the terms of the CC), its focus on punishment, presumption of malice and of course the author of the CC and the surrounding culture. Getting hung up on details like the word "pledge" is just going to burn people out, but will not resolve anything. On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 18:23:40 CET Marius Bakke wrote: > Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > > While I generally agree with the policies outlined in our CoC, and I > > support the practice of enforcing those policies through our control > > over our infrastructure and communications channels, I strongly oppose > > requiring or presuming that all participants "agree" with our policies, > > which I take to mean "declaring that they share the same opinions and > > goals". > > > > Some participants may disagree with our policies, and that's okay. > > We don't need their agreement to enforce our policies. > > > > Forcing people to declare their agreement with our policies as a > > prerequisite for participation, or worse, _presuming_ that they agree > > based on their having sent a patch or posted a message, is needlessly > > alienating to those who don't share our views. > > Thank you Mark for succinctly pointing out these flaws in our current > CoC. I agree that the language is overreaching, and think that these > discussions will continue to crop up as long as this wording is > included. > > Our usage of the Contributor Covenant have deterred at least three > contributors. I hope it has attracted and retained more than that; in > any case I think we can do better. > > Also thanks to Thorsten for filing > <https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/624>. > Getting this fixed upstream will benefit much more than the Guix project.
