Good points, these replies. I think it is fair to question what truth&#x2F;harmony we are talking about. The &quot;truth vs harmony&quot; dichotomy has become a bit loaded especially with all the folks invoking truth as a license to be jerky intellectual bullies.<p>I definitely don&#x27;t mean that. More like, there are always tradeoffs. There is cost&#x2F;benefit in being truthy just as there is cost&#x2F;benefit in being harmonious. Each has it&#x27;s own type and you get to choose which make more sense for the situation, team, etc.<p>I don&#x27;t think you can &quot;have it all&quot; so much as you can choose to set the tradeoff point somewhere in the middle rather than at the extremes. For example, in the Rust code of conduct example, it sounds like they have decided they want a nice mix. This will cost them though. Maybe the cost is as small sending $some_multiplier_above_1 the amount of emails between the team because things are worded more indirectly to not offend and therefore more disambiguation has to take place. If their team instead committed to be as direct as possible, the could spend less time on follow up emails but now they&#x27;d probably turn of or drive away some good folks from the team who decided they didn&#x27;t like all the directness and send of urgency.<p>Personally, I like a nice mix. I think it is just worth being clear with myself it is a mix and not two independent things where you can have an infinite supply of each.