Ok, let me be clear. I’m *not* interested in changing to some other form
of governance. Anarchy and consensus don’t work with open source projects
that share a code repo. I’ve seen this fail hard first hand, and I’ve been
burned too badly by it to want to ever walk down that path again.
I’m the benevolent dictator — or so I perceive myself — of nanomsg. I
didn’t *ask* for this job, but its mine for now and I’m going to do the
best I can at it. I don’t think shared leadership works, so I’m rejecting
that notion. If however Martin decides he wants the job back, I’ll be
happy to give it back to him, and then he can delegate others to govern or
do so himself. I kind of figuring I’m only standing-in for him anyway.
As you rightly point out, if you don’t like this situation, you can fork.
If Martin doesn’t like it, he can take the name back (although as I said,
if he wants it, I’ll return the mantle of leadership back to him with my
compliments and best wishes). A coup attempt would probably be successful,
mostly because if the community doesn’t want my benevolent dictatorship,
then I’m prepared to just walk way. Believe me, nanomsg has sucked far
more of my life away than I’d ever desired.
So, I *can* institute a CoC if I so choose. In fact, let me be clear —
there is an effective one already — its pretty much the same as the
document I pointed to, just implicit instead of explicit. I don’t need the
document to exercise power to eject someone who I feel is destructive to
the project. I will do so if I feel that’s appropriate. I hope it never
comes about, because although I’m a “benevolent dictator”, I do believe a
light hand is best, and I’m not looking for excuses to punish or find cause
for argument. I believe most people here are adults and can operate
without supervision. Supervision / moderation only becomes necessary in
the rare event that someone either doesn’t realize they are being an ass,
or is intentionally and consistently doing so. In the former case a
private email pointing it out is usually sufficient; the latter few are
toxic persons where banning is appropriate, and generally doing so is
noncontroversial because *everyone* recognizes the asshat for what they are.
I guess I’m more like nanomsg’s caring step-father than a dictator. I will
do what I can, but I can always walk away if I feel that’s best for either
myself or the community, but in the meantime its my house, my rules, and
I’m trying to do the best I can for common good.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:41 PM, crocket <crockabiscuit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Michael Powell <mwpowellhtx@xxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:17 PM, crocket <crockabiscuit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: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>
have aNormally 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
presentingproblem — 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
inclusive, andour “community” (are we even that big yet?) as welcoming and
wesetting a standard tone for acceptable behavior, seems like something
thinkought to embrace.
The cost to the project is low, at least at this point, since I don’t
projects.we have any of the toxicity that has plagued other open source
worthBut the potential benefit of attracting additional contributors seems
have ait 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
dimensions).CoC, the consequences for the project may be worse (in several
That said, Martin has the trademark for nanomsg still. If he
objectionsobjects I’ll shelve the proposal. If anyone else has strenuous
forto this, please let me know privately, with specific rational reasons
here, andyour concerns.
To be clear, there’s been no past need for any kind of enforcement
anyI hope such will never occur, and any kind of corrective response to
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