[nanomsg] Re: Adopting a CoC

  • From: crocket <crockabiscuit@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:11:47 +0900

That CoC lets the central authority with unilateral power decide who
the offenders are. Victims cannot choose their judges except by
forking or moving to another project. This is already a problem since
there is only one official nanomsg repository governed by judges who
aren't elected by litigants who file abuse report. The central
authority problem is mitigated by forking, but it is suboptimal
compared to a proper polycentric legal order. I propose polycentric
legal framework for compensating victims for personal damages.
Polycentric legal system works without a central authority. But, the
currently existing software repositories favor dictatorship or
oligarchy inside a project and allow polycentric legal order only by
forking projects. You're going to need a new website that enforces
polycentric legal order inside an open source project to even have a
chance at having a CoC accepted in subgroups of a project.

For now, as a quick hack, you can fork nanomsg, change the project
name, and document CoC on README. Then, only people who agree with
your CoC will contribute. A proper polycentric legal order makes it
possible to let people choose their own rules inside a project, thus
forming subgroups.

To briefly explain, polycentric law lets people choose their own laws
by choosing laws or judges. Polycentric law has been working since the
beginning of humanity between groups, between projects, in foreign
trade, in ancient ireland, and in the modern somalia. For detailed
descriptions on polycentric law(also known as anarcho capitalism),
refer to

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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
your concerns.

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
egregious toxicity.

And I hope the community will hold me to the same standard of


- Garrett

Other related posts: