"The Node Foundation is perceived as condoning such behavior, despite the adoption of a moral code that explicitly condemns it."

Link to PR CommentLadies and gentlemen, I urge you to keep your comments civil within this thread. The last thing I want to do is stir up more frustration, but this comment is too eloquent not to share.Please consider re-Tweeting - https://twitter.com/tkambler/status/903082375311183873I share the concerns of @ktrott and do not believe that I could state it more eloquently than the prior comments. Members of the Node Foundation, when identified as such, are seen as leaders and representatives of a community whether you like it or not.To expand further on this, it should be noted that the choice to personally associate with Node outside of any official Node channels is entirely voluntary, just as is the choice to contribute to Node in the first place. There is a positive benefit provided by making public such an association. It adds clout to your name within sectors of the development community, is seen as a badge of honor for some, and even has the potential to open up new opportunities that wouldn't otherwise be offered.However, you can't have your cake and eat it too by assuming that you can benefit from a public association without also accepting the inherent risks of your choice.Additionally, as the events of this past week have highlighted, such public associations are a two-way street. It seems that not many are considering how this reflects on the Node Foundation as a whole. By ignoring behavior in public channels, the Node Foundation is perceived as condoning such behavior, despite the adoption of a moral code that explicitly condemns it. In that light, this PR, as @jakeNiemiec noted above, only exacerbates the current situation as it changes the perception of condoning to confirmation of condoning by at least some members of the Node Foundation.To be frank, the PR, whether it's landed in the proposed language or not, has already caused further damage to the situation. It is likely to further increase the wedge between those who agree and those who disagree with the manner in which the Code of Conduct has been enforced, and/or the statements of individuals that have brought the Node Foundation's actions into the spotlight.With all that said, I offer the following suggestion...Own the code. A shallow or limited enforcement of the adopted Code of Conduct only hollows out the morality of the document itself. If the Code was written to promote inclusion, then the enforcement of such Code should not be exclusionary. The Foundation should not be prevented from weighing an individual's actions just because they were made within an excluded channel.Much like tax law, no matter your intentions, further clarifications and exemptions in this case are more likely to create loopholes for harassment and discrimination, as well as avenues for Node Foundation's inaction.I personally wish that every member of the Node Foundation shared and promoted the spirit of nodejs/community-committee#119, whether explicitly adopted or not.

Submitted August 31, 2017 at 03:36AM by sotimting