Code of Conduct (based on Contributor Covenant 3.0) for copyleft-next goes into effect within a week; final comments *now* please

[Vasileios Valatsos]

On 6/24/26 19:26, Richard Fontana wrote:
 > Unlike the situation
 > in <checks historical record> 2012, when the original copyleft-next
 > was launched, CoCs are now widely considered table stakes when
 > starting a free software project that at least aspires to having
 > significant collaborativeness.

The peak of activity for the mailing list was in Q3 2025. There was a 
discussion on an introduction of a CoC back then also, however the 
mailing list seemed to get along fine without it. I also don't get your 
argument about needing a CoC to attract collaborators? This is the 
equivalent of saying "We do not want a CoC because some people do not 
participate in free software projects that do have a CoC". Hopefully the 
example shows the absurdity of your claim.

 > I appreciate the view that CoCs are often 'performative', but one
 > reason for that is that there is often little or no attempt to make
 > sure the CoC meaningfully binds the maintainers of the project or
 > whoever is in control of governance generally. So in this case it was
 > important to try to figure out a way for a CoC to enforceably apply to
 > me and bkuhn at the outset and to not place enforcement of the CoC in
 > our hands.

It is extremely interesting that you say this when the mailing list so 
far has had a single rule (HRB), which neither you, nor bkuhn upheld.

(From https://git.copyleft.org/copyleft-next/hbr/src/branch/main/HBR.md)
Norm 3 specifically says:

 > Except in extraordinary cases, private telephone calls, private
 > teleconferences, private in-person meetings, and private email
 > communications shall not be used to discuss substantive development of
 > this project. Should such private communications nevertheless occur,
 > participants in such communications are expected to publish summaries 
 > of any relevant discussions in a manner or medium accessible to the
 > general net public.

Was this upheld? Why do I have to call you out on this? If you don't 
even attempt to make sure the single rule you have meaningfully binds 
yourselves, than how am I expected to think of the introduction of a CoC 
as anything other than performative? Obviously this is nitpicking and 
micromanaging, but hopefully my point does come across.

I don't know if I have made the impression that I "dislike CoCs", but in 
any case it is not true. Codes of Conduct in general make sense when 
there are large groups of people and a small team of moderators aren't 
able to police effectively; a CoC is the collective organization of the 
individual right to associate, and hence you introduce a legalistic 
system for the members to uphold.

However, in this specific situation and as it stands, it makes no sense 
and it a waste of time and, as we say in Greece, it is also a waste of 
grey matter. If we can count on our fingers + toes the number of 
contributors, or in this case members of a mailing list, then it doesn't 
make any sense to do such a drastic thing as to introduce a CoC. It 
would be like introducing the Copyleft Foundation and the Copyleft 
Constitution and Copyleft Bylaws, and holding elections. The 
copyleft-next list, or anything related to copyleft.org doesn't need the 
structure and drama of GNOME for example, and neither does it need a CoC 
at the current time.

- Vasileios