I guess there are different views about what the code of conduct should include:
 a) a well-defined process for resolving conflict when it cannot, for
whatever reason, be resolved via other pre-existing/less formal
interactions (an "escalation path")
 b) a pro-active statement of inclusiveness that explicitly protects
certain groups or minorities
 c) a document explicitly defining what kind of behaviour is or isn't
acceptable across all "Mozilla venues" (however that is defined)

a) seems relatively uncontroversial as a concept (though may still
require some work to get the details right), and seems quite useful (I
think it would have been useful in the incident that triggered this
discussion).

b) and c) are somewhat more controversial, largely because any list of
groups/behaviours/venues cannot be exhaustive, and deciding which
groups/behaviours/venues merit inclusion is highly subjective. Their
scope is also quite broad - "all of Mozilla" seems like far too big
and diverse of a community to try and start enforcing (or even
defining) very specific, explicit rules.

I know many people in these threads have been vocal about the
importance of b) and c), but I'm not confident that their value
outweighs the conflict created by debating them. From my perspective,
dialing down the desired specificity (and also turning focus to item
a)) seems more likely to lead to a productive outcome. I think your
proposal (in the other thread) is a good step in this direction, so I
am happy to see it.

Gavin