One side-effect of the “Covenant” discussion is that it is necessarily political, which is something that many (rightly, in my view) are trying to avoid. While I agree with most of the views expressed so far, I cringe because I anticipate that someone who disagrees will feel the compulsion to tell us that we are wrong, and things will go bad from there.
I haven’t reviewed the full email chain, but I’ve spent a few minutes searching pharo.org for “code of conduct” and “covenant” and come up empty. Before we continue the discussion of how “woke" (politically correct) we want to be, could someone confirm that this "dastardly deed" (imposing a progressive “Covenant” without asking for agreement) was actually done? Maybe a troll has just dropped a fire cracker on us and is sitting back, enjoying watching us run around screaming! If there was, indeed, adoption of a “Covenant” it should have been done by the board whose role “is to make decisions if in the future the community can't decide on a course of action” (https://pharo.org/about). I suggest that we suspend discussion of the politics of speech codes until we confirm that there is one for Pharo. At that point we politely (but pointedly) ask the board (publicly and privately) to explain what prompted the decision to adopt a Code (is it really necessary?) and how this one was selected. Note that part of the reason for limiting discussion is to avoid attracting attention of outsiders who will want to shape the discussion. Let’s stop kicking up dust for the moment! If we need a Code of Conduct, I respectfully suggest we start with ACM (https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics) which has what should be adequate anti-discrimination provisions (see 1.4 for a list of “underrepresented” groups) to satisfy the progressives among us. James Foster
