[nanomsg] Re: Adopting a CoC

  • From: Michael Powell <mwpowellhtx@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:05:31 -0500

-1

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Do you think a CoC would *cause* breakage?

I think of this more like vitamin C — preventive. You take it because you
want to *remain* healthy, not because you’re sick. It *might* help when
you’re sick already, but in the face of anything severe its effect is
probably palliative rather than curative.

Still, an ounce of prevention …. :-)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Michael Powell <mwpowellhtx@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

As long as it isn't something like an "unbroken leg"; i.e. "I don’t
think we have a problem — but if we did we might not know it";
meaning, the leg wasn't broken to begin with, but we'll break it and
prescribe more of the same as the "solution" to "healing" the
now-broken leg.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:15 PM, 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




Other related posts: