On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Bent Cardan <bent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I appreciate Garrett's leadership of the libnanomsg project, but I am -1
I do not see how arbitrary and probably unenforceable restrictions on the
exchange of communication or ideas carries the potential benefit of
attracting any additional contributors.
That’s “license to use” not “ownership”. The two things are very different.
Also, I thought Martin gave the trademark to nanomsg in this email to the
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
For the record:
Hereby, I grant permission to use 'nanomsg' trademark to the nanomsg
project as hosted at github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Marc Balmer <marc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
That CoC is utter bullshit, to be frank.
Am 05.01.2016 um 23:15 schrieb Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>:
Normally I try to avoid getting mired into political debates, but I’m
currently thinking of adding a standard CoC to the nanomsg source repo.
Basically my proposal is to add this:
to the nanomsg repo. (Updated with email addresses of course).
I do have my doubts about the efficacy of CoCs, and I don’t think we have
a problem — but if we did we might not know it — I suspect that all the
current contributors are male.
The concept of setting a stake in the ground for the future, and
presenting our “community” (are we even that big yet?) as welcoming and
inclusive, and setting a standard tone for acceptable behavior, seems like
something we ought to embrace.
The cost to the project is low, at least at this point, since I don’t
think we have any of the toxicity that has plagued other open source
projects. But the potential benefit of attracting additional contributors
seems worth it to me.
Additionally, doing this *now* is something that can be done
non-controversially (I hope). If we later have a problem and don’t have a
CoC, the consequences for the project may be worse (in several dimensions).
That said, Martin has the trademark for nanomsg still. If he strenuously
objects I’ll shelve the proposal. If anyone else has strenuous objections
to this, please let me know privately, with specific rational reasons for
To be clear, there’s been no past need for any kind of enforcement here,
and I hope such will never occur, and any kind of corrective response to
any future misbehavior is something I’d like to limit except in the face of
And I hope the community will hold me to the same standard of