My current guess is that mixing a polycentric legal system similar to
the xeer(from somalia) and C4.1 in a project would be better at
protecting victims than a CoC imposed upon the rest by the central
authority of the official repository.
If the central authority is not corrupt, then CoC may still work well
enough, but the central authority would not be incentivized to behave
as much as now unless there are threats of forking.
The problem of the central authority occurs when a victim perceives
personal damage but the central authority doesn't consider it as a
damage. This is purely theoretical at this point, but it is a probable
scenario.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Michael Powell <mwpowellhtx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:17 PM, crocket <crockabiscuit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For example, you could implement polycentric legal order by generating
multiple nanomsg repositories with its own judges and its own rules.
How do we merge commits from multiple repositories into one? That's
problematic. It may not work, but it was a fun thought experiment.
I use Boost as an illustration of the perceived, at any rate, molasses
that has happened as a result. Moves to Git / Github were supposed to
help with that flow, but I haven't seen it; vetted patches and such
are left sitting in their repositories without seeing the light of
day. Probably the "problem" (or opportunity) was always there, just
more pronounced now. This is just one man's opinion outside looking
in, of course.
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:
http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/3/0/code_of_conduct.md
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
professionalism.
Thanks,
- Garrett
