There appears to be a lot of drama around both the Open Code of Conduct and the Contributor Convent. I'm not at all familiar with either--is there anyone who is who could share the disagreements going on around both documents?
The Open Code of Conduct is a design-by-committee list of all the reasons you're a terrible person and you just don't know it yet, but don't worry as soon as you slip up we'll wage a campaign of harassment against you because you're "privileged" and you deserve it. And don't you dare criticize it, because "reverse"-isms don't exist.
She saw something she disagreed with in a Twitter conversation, and saw that the author's Twitter bio mentioned he contributed to Opal.
She then submitted an issue to that project suggesting he is not someone they should have in their project: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
This was a bit controversial.
There isn't really a right or wrong answer, in that the stereotype is usually true that workplaces that are horribly mismanaged or have certain inherent issues tend to be unionized because they really need it, and workplaces that are better managed or have different inherent conditions tend not to have a union. Likewise there are some groups of humans that need more... political thought police... than other groups of humans. And the groups that need thought police, frankly, do need them, and the groups that don't, tend to really not need them, to the point where it wouldn't be just a merely useless appendix but an actual cancer on the group.
Most of the drama (for both unionization and conduct codes) comes from insider debates about exactly which category a group belongs to, worst case its kinda 50:50, or from outsiders just rabble rousing as political operatives often do. Sometimes ignorance breeds hatred, when otherwise well meaning folks who don't really know anything, none the less have very strong opinions based on lack of experience, or anecdote.
ESR has written about one of the CoC authors here: https://archive.is/6F9Yr
Tldr: the people who claims to deliver a product providing order and civility (the "CoC") are usually the people who are conducting the abusive behaviour.
In such a CoC is very alarming signal with regard to who is in charge of a project's management.
His political position is that open source projects should be about the code, not gender, politics and endless subjects ripe for tactical abuse and causing drama.
Personally I find that a perfectly reasonable and rational position. What fault do you find with it?
> We will not act on complaints regarding:
> ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’