In, I believe, an effort to provide a set of rules for a better GRIN community, the GRIN council had deployed the GRIN code of conduct, which can be read in the following Github page:
The code of conduct outlines a set of rules that the community should follow in “official” GRIN platforms:
“The enforcement policies listed above apply to all official Grin venues; including Gitter, mailing lists and IRC.”
Albeit the fact that the term “official” is pretty difficult to define in a context like GRIN, one can realize that this set of rules does not apply to GRIN as a coin but more to the GRIN communities that are managed by the council (this forum, keybase,…). I am not saying this negatively but rather just as a fact.
Each community should be free to establish their own code of conduct, but the precise naming here (Grin Code of Conduct) is reasonably confusing. A deployment “per platform” of code of conducts is probably something more appropriate, and would be fitting an effort to decentralize GRIN by not directly linking GRIN to the GRIN council, which are two different concepts.
This maybe doesn’t appear an important thing, but in a way it is, since this type of decisions partly set the tone for a whole community.
To finish, here is an extract of the Wikipedia page describing Crypto-anarchachy, which GRIN could have a nice fit in:
“Crypto-anarchism or crypto-anarchy is a form of anarchy accomplished through computer technology. Crypto-anarchists employ cryptographic software for confidentiality and security while sending and receiving information over computer networks, in an effort to protect their privacy, their political freedom, and their economic freedom.”
The Grin code of conduct was created by Ignotus in September 2017, and aside from typo fixes has not been changed since. It predates the formation of the core team and the Grin council by a wide margin.
Given how contentious this topic can be (please refer to the mailing list if you have any doubt), if you see issues with the current version, I think it makes sense to be as specific and clear as possible in the feedback for improving it:
Which wording is it exactly that you think should change, why does it need to change, and what should it be changed to?
I would delete it. Maybe that hurts, but that’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Why a coin would have a code of conduct, and not rather each of its communities? Especially a coin that promotes decentralization and where decentralization is one of its fundamental values.
Each specific (sub) community should have one if they desire, but not something mentioned “GRIN code of conduct” in my humble opinion. I am sure Ignotus didn’t have bad intention with that of course, but that does not make sense to me as I already explained in the original post. That’s how I can be specific.
Otherwise, but it doesn’t have exactly the same result as removing it, I would rename “Grin code of conduct” to “Code of Conduct of the Grin communities managed/operated by Grin Core/Council”. This sounds less sexy, but more fair
Nothing, but I would just change the name. GRIN counsil is an important part of GRIN, that is participating in a large part in shaping the GRIN community, and this type of decisions is all but unimpactful I think.
GRIN != Grin communities operated by the Grin council.
Despite all the crucial role of Grin counsil, present and historical, in building Grin
Rust, for example, has chosen to name their code of conduct on their official page: “Code of Conduct”, which is quite different from “Rust Code Of Conduct”, that they did not choose. The comparison is what it is, given Rust is not a decentralized cryptocurrency. For our case, the naming is probably even more important
Yes, agreed. I don’t think anyone has claimed anything different.
For what it’s worth, the grin council doesn’t ‘operate’ any communities. Community participants operate their own communities.
The core team / council are admins and moderators in some Grin communities, those that are heavily geared towards development. The reason for that is that there’s seemingly nobody else that’s willing to step up and take on that thankless task.
No need to claim anything. You want to keep “GRIN code of conduct” for the communities moderated/operated/managed by Core. That doesn’t make sense to me. And that tells a lot without needing to claim anything. Control is control, people like it.
But we are supposed to make efforts towards decentralizatkon in our case (and set the examples in that regards in situations where it is possible).
Yes, for now I can’t see something else but the desire to control. Which is what it is. It is just my vision.
You are very often taking part of discussions and, very fairly, pointing out in logical ways the things that you think make sense or not to you.
Naming this code of conduce the “GRIN code of conduct”, not only yourself but anybody else for that matter, will have a difficult time in convincing me that it makes sense in the context of a decentralized crypto. We are not in the context of a company, of an homogeneous community, or of a hierarchical organization as far as I know, ideally.
And they’ll have a difficult time in explaining me that it is for non controlling reasons that one would want to keep this name in a context of decentralized network as well.
The only thing that would convince me that it is not for controlling reasons would be: ah you know, Rust has this name for their code of conduct, we like Rust, we kind of just did the same. Then, OK, this is fine. Maybe let’s think again. But as per this discussion it makes all sense to you, independently of the Rust case, to not set the example by explictely specifying in the title that this code of conduct applies to specific communities. I see control, I am not judging. Just what I see.
Sorry, I did not mean purposely malicious, and my fault if it is perceived that way. I just perceived that the discussion was somewhat closed when I brought arguments that I thought logical and felt “barrier” with your messages. “Control” is not evil, and sometimes exercised without bad intentions at all. What I said was not meant to be personal and to accuse of malice, sorry if it was taken that way. Sometimes I guess control can be exercised when just lack of trust is given to other entities/persons and that we feel ambassador and guarant of some principles or directions in projects, which is not evil. Or these kind of reasons