>> CoC assumes contributions are primarily due to the conduct of the community and not the intellect/interest of the contributor > No. Yes. If that weren't th

>> CoC assumes contributions are primarily due to the conduct of the community and not the intellect/interest of the contributor > No. Yes. If that weren't the case there would be no need for a CoC. Kroah-Hartman's justification for the CoC is the longevity of the project, but the longevity of the project is not affected in any significant way by the conduct of its contributors. Evidence of that is the current success of Linux, which had no CoC for 20 years. Adding the CoC condition will have no noticeable positive effect on the longevity of the project: Linux isn't going anywhere, CoC notwithstanding. >> The quality of a community isn't primarily measured by its conduct but rather its accomplishments > Measuring the two is a possibility. That you don't, yourself, include the conduct of a community in your measure of its quality is your choice and yours only. It's not my choice, it's the truth. Community conduct is not a requirement for a successful project but accomplishments are. Never have seen a project with good conduct but no accomplishments succeed, but I've seen many projects with bad conduct and many accomplishments succeed. >> I'm curious as to what led to this broadly wrong evaluation of the situation. What lead you to believe that? You're the one who is wrong, as shown in my trivial counter examples. Simple logic and evidence are the tools I use to evaluate situations accurately.