A non-binding +1. :) I had a couple of questions that didn't have obvious answers in the text.
First, what is the intended interaction between "explicitly honour[ing] diversity in: ... political beliefs, ... religion" when the beliefs in question explicitly contradict the diversity statement? I believe that the intent is to protect traditionally persecuted groups, but I worry that the focus on the axes rather than the person, and the inclusion of axes that involve personal choice opens the community up to arguments of the form "my honored, protected beliefs preclude me from being a decent human being, and you must empathize with me and respect my beliefs." I suspect that the intent is to honor individuals, no matter what characteristics they are composed of, so long as that individual complies with the code of conduct, but as Jason Smith pointed out, I'd rather not rely on my common sense. Second, is the intent that violations will be handled on an individual, case-by-case, ad-hoc basis? (I don't think that's a problem, as they should be rare.) Who is authorized to do so? Is that something that should be spelled out here, or is that more of a bylaws thing? Finally, I'd like to add that I don't think that the code of conduct *needs* a glossary. It states that the project uses English, and there are enough language resources available online that an interested party can easily find definitions. Colloquial (mis)use of a given term doesn't seem relevant to me, especially for terms that have a pretty cut-and-dry meaning like "sexism." Thanks for all of the hard work that went into these documents (both the CoC and the bylaws). Cheers, Eli (wickedgrey on IRC)
