The Contributor Covenant is basically just a lot of publicity grabbing faux FOSS addition. I mean if you can't contribute code why simply mess around with things like the Code of Conduct.
> I mean if you can't contribute code why simply mess around with things like the Code of Conduct.
there are many more parts to a community, even a community of developers, than just contributing code.
True, but OSS and business software development is frequently short-handed in people who can actually make the software, not the planners, organizers, etc.
The political debate gets polarizing because many of the "makers" think it's a lack of skill, and the other side comes across as blaming the maker's attitudes/community/etc.
But you're begging the question here. I'm not the parent commenter, but it is not self-evident that the programmers/developers are the main class of "people who can actually make the software", not even in a literal sense, since software is not just its lines of code, anymore than hardware development is factory assembly.
For example, in "business software development", there are product managers and other business-facing people who have input on and make decisions, for better or worse, about software development. How is a programmer's contributions to making the software more significant than those of their product/business colleagues', if the latter have failed to cultivate paying customers?
Because these actually improve the project.
a code of conduct tends to improve projects when having one can help attract additional people to the project, or keep people there.