I don’t want to wade into this too much but I do have some concerns about this whole process. There are two main things I want to say.
The first is that the tenor of the comments from the moderation team/SC/PSF board strikes me as essentially “If Person A does something and Person B interprets that in a way they find objectionable, it is automatically (or at least by default) Person A who must accept they are in the wrong.” I don’t think that that is reasonable, and on some level I think it reflects a limited view of the CoC guideline about “being respectul of differing viewpoints and experiences”. When I participate in a community, I accept that I may sometimes have to reconsider my own actions in light of how others interpret them, and perhaps change my pattern of future action, and I accept that. But I also accept that I may sometimes have to consider my own reactions to the actions of others, and perhaps change my pattern of future reaction. Both of those are part and parcel of engaging in a diverse community.
Which actions and which reactions are condoned or condemned cannot follow simply from a general maxim to “be respectful of different perspectives” but must also depend on substantive guidelines about actual content. I recognize that there is a reluctance to get into things like lists of specific allowed or prohibited conduct, and reasonably so, because (as mentioned by others) it can lead to “rules-lawyering” and tempt certain people to push the boundaries. But just because not every detail can be specifically delineated doesn’t mean the right approach is to totally avoid such details and fall back only on very general principles like “be respectful and considerate”. The problem is that what it means to be respectful of differing viewpoints is itself a matter on which people have differing viewpoints. 
This doesn’t mean the differences are irreconciliable or that any mismatch in perspectives means someone has committed an egregious violation. It just means that those general principles often need additional, more specific layers on top of them to make clear to everyone what the accepted interpretation of such guidelines is in a particular community.[1]
My second, related point is that a lack of transparency in handling such matters can be self-defeating in some ways and may not advance the goal of having healthy community consensus on acceptable conduct. The reason is that our understanding of general principles of conduct can evolve, and the only way we know it is evolving in a good direction is that we as a community see it happening and understand it and endorse it. An opaque process based on broad principles can just as easily be used (and has often been used) to silence or punish the powerless as to curtail the impunity of the powerful.
Simply learning that someone did something and it wasn’t okay, but not knowing what was done or why it wasn’t okay, doesn’t increase confidence that all is well. It may not even have the effect of deterring other potential wrongdoers (since it’s unclear what the punishable offence was), and it can have the unintended effect of deterring other participants from innocent acts. It also misses one of the most important opportunities for enhancing the community, which is the chance to clearly take a position and exemplify the standards we espouse. In some cases, a quiet resolution without disclosure of the offense can be seen as sweeping the problem under the rug. The point is that without transparency no one knows whether enforcement of a CoC is too strict, too lenient, or just right.
I sense in the board’s communications a desire to protect victims or offended parties, which is certainly a valid concern. But enforcement of community standards impacts not just the victim and the perpetrator, it impacts the whole community. When people are suffering in silence, one of the main things that makes them feel comfortable voicing their concerns it that they see action being taken against an offender, and a clear statement of what the offense was, and thus gain confidence that their own complaint will be supported too. But that “collateral benefit” isn’t available without transparency.
On some level, both these points can be boiled down to saying that something like a CoC can’t fully succeed unless it is by and for the community, not just the moderation team. There needs to be a shared understanding of what is and isn’t okay, and that can’t occur without openness in the handling of at least some delicate situations. It doesn’t mean every detail needs to be public, but enough needs to be public that the community as a whole can know whether they agree or disagree with how things are going.
I’ve had my share of encounters with communities that took the position that users should toughen up and deal with various kinds of bad behavior, and those were hair-raising enough to make me sure we don’t want that here. I sympathize with a desire to steer clear of that. I’ve also done enough moderation myself in other online spaces to know that overall we have it pretty good here on this forum. But it seems we’re already seeing a degree of fracturing, and I’m not sure that simple reiteration of the same broad CoC principles (as noble as they may be) is really the best that can be done.
For instance, the original post in this thread mentions “Utilizing emojis and turns of phrase in ways that can be misconstrued or perceived entirely differently by different people”. That to me is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Virtually everything can be misconstrued or perceived differently by different people. The following reminder to “be mindful when writing that your audience is a much broader diverse professional community” is certainly a fine sentiment, but, at least for me, it doesn’t really add anything new beyond what’s already in the CoC. To be clear, I don’t question that people should be mindful of these things or think twice about what they say; I’m just not sure how many outré comments that would otherwise have been said will now remain unsaid due to this guidance. ↩︎