That's only if you take CoC enjoyers at their word. It makes perfect sense when you realize it's not about advancing project or community, but rather controlfreak ideology.
a.) They found it off-putting that OpenBSD was "proud" not to have a CoC, in the context of whether they would choose to work with them or to host the website themselves. Consider taking a moment to read the passage in question: https://isopenbsdsecu.re/about/
This idea they were surprised a project succeeded without having a CoC is an artefact of this particular discussion, not something the author ever said or implied. It was in the same category as de Raadt swearing at people over email - they didn't anticipate a productive exchange if they reached out. That's it.
If someone declares they reserve the right to treat people however they please, and then you observe them treating people in a way you don't want to be treated, and your conclusion is, "I don't think emailing this person is a good use of my time, I'm just going to host this website myself" - I find it hard to understand how anyone would find that objectionable, that seems simple, common sense, and largely neutral.
b.) Whenever you have a large group of people collaborating for an extended period of time, you have incidents. There's drama. There's inappropriate behavior. It's just how it goes. It's a Murphy's Law thing.
Eventually people sit down and say, "we've gotta set some ground rules." You probably signed a code of conduct at every school you attended and every job you've accepted. I know I have.
You can disagree with that without viewing it as a conspiracy. It's a predictable result of being in a large community, and about as ideological as traffic lights.
I did read the page in question… You talk like it would be any different with the linux kernel. A CoC doesn’t govern whether you’re entitled to a productive discussion with the big maintainer. Theo swearing at one person cannot be extrapolated to swearing at all people. And in linux’s case it apparently doesn’t prevent good contributions from getting stonewalled and shunned (to the point of turning contributors away) by righteous zealots in the community anyway.
If you read the page then I don't understand why you continue to mischaracterize what it says. Eg, the page offers multiple examples of de Raadt swearing at people, which you characterize as "swearing at one person." Frankly, it makes me doubt your candor.
I was speaking rhetorically. I don't mean to imply there’s only one i stance of swearing. Anyway that’s not even the point. We know Theo is abrasive. It also makes good security. Weird to complain about “the community” on a page evangelizing the success of said community. If the author doesn't want to dive into the mailing list then good for them. Leave it at that.
You weren't speaking rhetorically, you were mischaracterizing what the author said to weaken their statement. That's the most charitable way to describe it without parting from the facts.
> If the author doesn't want to dive into the mailing list then good for them. Leave it at that.
And no, the author whined about how he doesn’t like the icky openbsd community very much arguably out of place. (There are multiple people who have mentioned they think it’s out of place, at least.) That’s not leaving it at that. Leaving it at that implies no further action.
I believe you when you say you made no error and that it was part of your rhetorical strategy. The problem is that your rhetorical strategy was to mischaracterize the author's statement in order to weaken it. That's dishonest. Saying "that was merely rhetorical" doesn't magically make it not dishonest. (This is on top of your earlier mischaracteiztion that they were "surprised" a project succeeded without a CoC, which I presumed was a mistake caused by a game of telephone in this discussion until you implied that wasn't the case. I can't take you at your word when you have mischaracterized the author multiple times then doubled down.)
If you had said, "oh, that was a mistake, I didn't mean to imply they had extrapolated from a single instance," then I would've believed you then, too.
They made a side note in an "about" page. You're making a mountain out of a pebble. The author made a minor note about their thought process, you have been complaining about it and have now crossed into personal attacks on them. "Whining" is not a stone you ought to be throwing.
That's only if you take CoC enjoyers at their word. It makes perfect sense when you realize it's not about advancing project or community, but rather controlfreak ideology.