Two overarching thoughts:

1) Why are we legislating behavior in such detail? if we decide that we want to do so, we need to consult legal authorities about this.

2) Why are we focused on behavior to begin with? I'm interested in the different paradigm from SAP: https://www.sap.com/community/resources/rules-of-engagement.html -- the first line is:

Encourage free sharing of knowledge.

I mean, we're an open source community. Shouldn't we promote it?

This sounds like a question for legal authorities. Are we suggesting that we qualify as such?

I'm not trained. I think training of "local" as in meetup organizers is an undue burden. (nevertheless, it'd be great to offer such training)

But such training of all meetup organizers, IMO, is not practical, possibly unless we offer to pay such organizers for their time.

There's no way that we can manage what goes on Twitter

Language is only one part of "world-wide" community. And what behavior is this trying to enforce? Are we supposed to set up simultaneous translations for any discussions of CoCs?

Related issue: there's a recent discussion of "nonce" as a derogatory slang term in the UK. Does that mean if I use "nonce" in my work (which I have to), that I'm violating the CoC?

I'm not sure what this means. What I see is a poorly written statement for a job performance review.

Suggests obligations. While I'd like to encourage people to report issues, this is going too far -- but if we're going to be this wordy, we should state that such reports are confidential -- here.

I think this still fits under "All reports will be kept confidential"

You're welcome to report the incident through a trusted third party.

Also redundant to "please include, when possible"

I think this is redundant to "When and where..."

(besides, it's an incomplete sentence)

including links or screenshots, if available.

Also redundant

all parties, including witnesses.

unneeded. Why else would we want contact info?

Redundant.

I think this encourages nuisance reports.

If not, this is too wordy as well.

Too wordy.

"If you report an incident, you're helping us understand what's happening in our community."

Speakers are a small subset of the community. If we're suggesting that speakers have a special responsibility, we should be explicit.

If this is a "hierarchy", then I disagree with the order. Public apology is more severe than the other two.

Why include this? If there's no violation, the CoC doesn't apply

And this appears to confirm that everything in this section does not apply to people not in the stated categories.

This suggests that other members of WtD are allowed to employ such techniques.

While I appreciate the intent, the definition of sexualized is in the eye of the beholder. What of events in countries where exposed skin is considered "sexualized"?

This implies that others in the WtD community are allowed to use such images, etc.

Shouldn't this be sufficient for sponsors, etc.?

I don't know what this means. Are we referring to the ability of a person to participate "outside our spaces"?

How does this relate to where the code of conduct applies?

If we're going to be this prescriptive (and I disagree with that notion), this statement belongs in a different section.

One thing that's not clear to me: does this apply to interactions between one of the 6000+ individuals on the WtD slack? Anyone who uses the #writethedocs hashtag, even if both parties are not part of the community?

I could go on, but I think this is the problem with trying to define "everything". I don't think you can without going beyond the purview of WtD.

"created by the which"?

Have we X-checked against the GH code of conduct, if available?

Why try to list everything -- "all spaces managed by Write the Docs" should cover it.

This (and several other items on the list are covered by law in most jurisdictions. Differences between the list and what's codified in law is IMO begging for a lawsuit.

Lists like this IMO beg for people who look for loopholes.

So someone who takes a picture of a conference audience from the back violates the CoC?

So it's OK to make harmful true claims about a person?

This list would scare the heck out of me. I wouldn't want to go to an event where all of this happens.

Principles should be simple statements, without explanations.

Why the modifier? Distracts from the message.

Constructive criticism and kindness are not always compatible.

Not necessarily true.

"Choose your words carefully"

As we've created this CoC for documentarians, I'd like to avoid the "Be verb" throughout.

One the guiding principles of modern style is to stick with active verbs (except when citing definitions).

This is redundant -- and I think risky, as it's also "legislating behavior.

On top of that, people may feel threatened by discussions that don't violate most CoCs. Example: authors may feel threatened by criticism of their work.

And now we're "legislating" behavior outside the community? Do we even have jurisdiction? This is like saying that the USA can prosecute its citizens for behavior in other countries.

People who do substandard work can still follow the code of conduct -- or are you saying that substandard workers are in violation of the Code of Conduct?

This is redundant to the first sentence -- and I think a lawyer could take this apart -- what do we mean by "not limited to". Who interprets that statement?

While I do like this

Really? You mean I can say that everyone should be friendly and patient, and it'll happen?

Or do you mean that people who are not friendly and/or not patient are violating the CoC?

You mean this encylopedia of legalese isn't enough? What else do I need?

Why do we even go into this? Unless we have unique needs w/r/t a code of conduct, this section is unneeded.

One size does not fit all. Many CoC provisions for conferences make no sense for Meetups.

The whole list is intimidating. I'm already feeling like I'm reading a legal document. Has this been checked by a lawyer?