https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/942

The author of the issue suggests the adoption of a certain Contributor Covenant. Here is the latest version of the text:

https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-con...

And here is the Node.js CoC:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nodejs/admin/master/CODE_O...

Here is the diff:

https://www.diffchecker.com/2Lj88IT6

The only substantial difference is located on the very first paragraph:

- education, socio-economic status

+ race

It is clearly the same CoC.

Nowhere in that text does it say that Twitter is some kind of private space where you can freely express unpopular opinions without consequences to your good standing as a contributor to software projects. The scope section actually says this:

>This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.

>Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.

As evidenced by the Opal issue I cited, the mere mention of a project on your Twitter profile causes people to assume it is an "official social media account" and therefore subject to the CoC.

>His Twitter profile mentions that he is a core contributor to opal.

>Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the project?

So why were there no consequences following this report?

https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/324

The Twitter in question clearly is associated with Node.js:

https://twitter.com/ag_dubs

>@nodejs director. former @npmjs.

These facts were enough for me to form my opinion about CoCs and their enforcement.