Change to Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct are inconsistent

[Relequestual]

When updating Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct from 1.4 to 2.0 (commit line), it was modified by adding one word, adding "project" before "community".

I understand the intent! The consequences are supposed to only apply to the specific projects community.
However, there are many more instances of "community" in relations to consequences before that last and final reference to community.

I propose that rather than modifying the CC-CoC in multiple locations, a definition of "community" should be established in the preamble above the CC-CoC.

Happy to make a PR if appropriate.

[ljharb]

The Foundation also has community that spans projects and exists outside them - I'm not sure it's beneficial to add that qualifier. The broad term "community" appropriately allows interpretation so it can be flexibly applied where needed.

[eemeli]

This was not in fact a change made during the update. It's a change made to Contributor Covenant 2.0 after its initial publication.

As mentioned in #418, Contributor Covenant does not publish patch releases. The "2.0" we currently have was copied from the upstream on 2020-01-07. The upstream change of dropping the word "project" was made on 2020-01-11 by @CoralineAda as a direct commit on its release branch with no associated issue,PR or other communication: EthicalSource/contributor_covenant@a63f697

We may want/need to specify the exact commit rather than just the version of Contributor Covenant that we're using.

[Relequestual]

This was not in fact a change made during the update. It's a change made to Contributor Covenant 2.0 after its initial publication.

As mentioned in #418, Contributor Covenant does not publish patch releases.

Well damn.

The Foundation also has community that spans projects and exists outside them - I'm not sure it's beneficial to add that qualifier. The broad term "community" appropriately allows interpretation so it can be flexibly applied where needed. - @ljharb

OK. My default stance is against leaving anything open to interpretation, but I can understand the argument for it in this case.

The implication of removing "project" to me implies that consequences apply across the whole OpenJSF community, and not just within the specific project where the violation occured.
If this is the intent, then is there some standard approach to contact all the admins of the project to be vigilant?
Has this ever been tested?