coc: removing automation workflow

[joesepi]

It was decided to back out of the automation approach to managing our CoC. This PR removes the automation files.

Related: #1122
Closes: #1064

[anonrig]

🫡

[Relequestual]

I'm not against this, but for the sake of prosperity, could we add a little documentation here as to why this PR was required?
There was a lot of work done on deciding to do, and then doing, an automation process for CoC patching. (It would be good to have the arguments against it, to aid avoiding potentially doing it again later.)

[tobie]

To answer @Relequestual's questions and for posterity's sake, here's the rationale behind dropping the CoC automation:

• We fell in the trap of premature automation and misestimated the work that would be needed to make this a workable solution.
• Once the script finally worked, we're realized that the pull requests created have a much higher cognitive load for reviewers because they're patches of patches (see https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/pull/1065/files) and generated otherwise avoidable conversations and delays as a result.
• The Contributor Covenant hasn't seen an update in two years (https://github.com/EthicalSource/contributor_covenant/commits/release/content/version/2/1/code_of_conduct.md) and probably won't ever be, as doing so would require updating multiple translated versions.
• At this point, pursuing that work was falling prey to the sunken-cost fallacy.

We're really sorry for the great work and energy @anonrig put into this, but there was consensus that backing out was the right call to make.