Leaders who don’t take their responsibility for leadership seriously are very bad leaders, as we have had demonstrated for us quite recently.
I hope that groups replace their leaders who think this way.
If the scale of a project is such that leadership is actually important, it's 1000x more useful to e.g. form a nonprofit than to slap a list of behavioral proscriptions on contributors.
A “reasonable person” test can be applied to judge these things. It’s not very popular because it isn’t a strict, objectively-applied code, which is what hackers generally prefer, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good and workable solution.
As hackerdom gets more mainstream and the mean moves closer to neurotypical, these sorts of non-objective “if they are being mean, kick them out” ideas are gaining popularity without meanness having to be strictly, objectively defined.
These people are trying to make a political statement with this CoC; they are solving a problem that doesn’t exist (or is solved by simply not having one without proclaiming loudly how not-having-one you are). It strikes me as YAGNI.
Unless you like being an asshole, just don’t have a public, defined CoC (just an unwritten informal “no assholes”) and quietly kick out any assholes who show up.