Relating to my previous post, it's pretty clear that some people think of the Ubuntu code of conduct as (effectively) political correctness gone mad, and that anyone who thinks it's a good idea is clearly a wuss. nou suggested that this isn't inherently a bad thing, and that the range of different opportunities in Linux means that whether or not one distribution aims to be "fluffy" isn't really a problem.
I'd possibly go slightly further than that. We have basically three classes of people:
People who won't work on "fluffy" projects
People who won't work on "hostile" projects
People who will work on pretty much any project, independent of the atmosphere
So, think of it as an optimisation tactic - projects benefit from having skilled people working on them. Do you gain more skilled people from being "fluffy" or "hostile"? Ubuntu's betting on the former, and my gut feeling is that that's the right answer. I don't have any reason to believe that the number of people in category 1 is terribly large, while I think category 2 is potentially much bigger.
Right now, I've got no evidence to back that up at all. But that's ok. In the long run, we'll probably get a better idea. If you think that Ubuntu's wrong to have chosen those criteria, then that's also ok. You're not obliged to be involved. Perhaps I'll be wrong, and the "hostile" projects will end up out-innovating the "fluffy" ones. But criticising the "fluffy" projects because they've dared to try something different? No, I don't think that's reasonable.