And as for "maybe it's not for you", I agree and that's what I stated. I wanted to bring it to the attention of other potential users who may also feel that it's not for them either.
You may have a different opinion of the importance of these issues (or disagreement over whether they're issues at all) and I respect that. I'm simply sharing mine.
Thanks for pointing this out and potentially saving people the trouble.
I don't know anything about Forgejo specifically though. I think it's good to have open-source projects trying to compete with Github and Gitlab.
Groups of people are politics. At some point you need to get over it.
Simple aesthetic changes and codes of conduct / political alignment for contributors are not enough for forks to become full things of their own. Even if they can help (branding, community, etc.). Or hurt (Forgejo is harder to pronounce. And CoC have potential downsides, possibly excluding good people, ironically, over banal minutia and hostile environment around being "not hostile" - like you saying he is "hung up" on it...).
Gitea was already a fork of Gogs, so why should contributors use this fork of a fork?
These forks (and direct clones) are like little political secessionary/independence movements, both making lofty statements and splitting would-be contributors. Sometimes it works out very well and they become full independent things of their own (GNU stuff), but it's fair to want to get on to see the actual engineering side of things.
So I only find it natural that a group of people who split off of Gitea took extra care to set up some kind of governance model.
Those who dislike the idea of a code of conduct can of course also contribute to Gitea or Gogs, or fork Forgejo, etc. This is free software after all.
With 23 open and 1.381 closed PR forgejo seems like an active project, it's in use at codeberg.org which means it isn't a random fork.
If anything, this is a prime example of what many people are concerned about when the topic of CoCs is raised.