You keep focusing on Debian, which, as we have both established, already has a well-developed framework.
Moreover, most of the computing world barely interacts with Debian using that framework; they just download packages anonymously without submitting themselves to any CoC or other contract. And when Ubuntu showed up with a bit of extra makeup, they jumped ship to get their dose of prepackaged proprietary drivers. Most of society is, in effect, free to ignore their rules.
So even if their extremely developed guidelines work well enough for the tiny Debian ingroup (nevermind Appelbaum joining), I don't think you should expect such "private" rules to scale to larger subsets of the population without experiencing serious backlash.
Tension will rise with the number of people who are impacted by illegitimate rules and do not want to subscribe to the ideology. At one point, "no need for any kind of formal legal framework" is not a serious proposition, as the rules become indistinguishable from discrimination. As another commenter puts it:
> All too often, we equivocate between treating online communities as private parties or as quasipublic institutions. Compounding the problem, a given software community can very quickly grow from the former into the latter.
Repeating myself: you are writing essays legitimizing extralegal punishment and banishment from groups which are growing (and growing intensely) within society.
While I sympathize with your original goals, I am wary of side effects which you seem to be gleefully willing to ignore ("no need for any kind of formal legal framework for this - any group of people are free to impose requirements on others who wish to join that group," really? At which scale?), and, frankly, would encourage you to be a bit more thoughtful and restrained when using authoritarian vocabulary.
Re: "Discipline"? "Members"? What kind of "community" are you talking about?
Moreover, most of the computing world barely interacts with Debian using that framework; they just download packages anonymously without submitting themselves to any CoC or other contract. And when Ubuntu showed up with a bit of extra makeup, they jumped ship to get their dose of prepackaged proprietary drivers. Most of society is, in effect, free to ignore their rules.
So even if their extremely developed guidelines work well enough for the tiny Debian ingroup (nevermind Appelbaum joining), I don't think you should expect such "private" rules to scale to larger subsets of the population without experiencing serious backlash.
Tension will rise with the number of people who are impacted by illegitimate rules and do not want to subscribe to the ideology. At one point, "no need for any kind of formal legal framework" is not a serious proposition, as the rules become indistinguishable from discrimination. As another commenter puts it:
> All too often, we equivocate between treating online communities as private parties or as quasipublic institutions. Compounding the problem, a given software community can very quickly grow from the former into the latter.
Repeating myself: you are writing essays legitimizing extralegal punishment and banishment from groups which are growing (and growing intensely) within society.
While I sympathize with your original goals, I am wary of side effects which you seem to be gleefully willing to ignore ("no need for any kind of formal legal framework for this - any group of people are free to impose requirements on others who wish to join that group," really? At which scale?), and, frankly, would encourage you to be a bit more thoughtful and restrained when using authoritarian vocabulary.