It appears this fork may experience its first taste of conflict resolution with the code of conduct. As best as I can tell (and I may very well be wrong on this) @Null dislikes codes of conduct and @Atomozero thinks it may be a good idea to have one. This conflict, if there indeed is one, can be resolved in multiple ways:
Ignore it
This might look like waiting to do the code of conduct till after other parts of the project have been established. This strategy doesn't work every time, but for less important controversies, it works pretty well. This may be one of them. As far as I know, we at Haiku use this strategy a lot in smaller matters.
Obviously, this strategy won't help for bigger controversies, which brings us to the next strategy:
Compromise
Compromise is much harder. Not everyone will necessarily walk away pleased with the outcome. A few may even actively despise the result. Hopefully most people will be happy with the compromise or at least be able to tolerate it. Some individuals are more moderate and so more willing to engage in compromise than others who are more extreme. This fact is one of the things that can make compromise difficult.
One of the tools that can help with this problem is polls. @Atomozero appears interested in using these, so I'll talk about this method first. These work pretty well in the context of compromise, since it helps say "even if you personally disagree with the decision, the community at large supports it." It's pretty good. Of course, there are some things that need to be figured out with this too, such as, who can vote in the polls? Only those who are active in the project? Or are people who rarely if ever contribute also allowed to have a say? What about people who actively disagree with the project? If this project is going to make heavy use of polls, these questions will likely need to be figured out.
The alternative method is to use discussions. This is the method that the Haiku project usually uses at present. A large of group discuss a problem. Things can sometimes get heated. Then a smaller group of people (the developers or moderators) decide the results. This has its own advantages in that smaller groups of people tend to have an easier time reaching compromise. Especially when one of the criteria used to evaluate candidates for the smaller group is how well they can handle disagreements. However, this has the danger of community members having a harder time accepting the results. At worst, it can result in a small group of people actively ignoring what almost everybody else wants and acting like a group of dictators!
Fork
If nothing works to resolve a disagreement, then forking is pretty much the only option left. It, however, has a cost. It requires manpower and tends to duplicate work. In the AI controversy for Haiku, may be the best solution. In general, however, it is likely best to avoid using this if at possible.
So you've resolved a conflict
Unfortunately, especially for some of the more difficult controversies, not everybody will accept the result. Individuals should, to the extent possible, however, try to accept the result. Sometimes, the group of dissatisfied individuals will bring up the controversy again and again and advocate for their side once again. This can be exhausting for those who agree with the solution to the controversy.
This kind of continuous disagreement can raise some of the more difficult questions of moderation. Do you declare the issue has been resolved and shut down all future conversations on the topic? That seems a bit extreme. Do you let people express their disappointment again and again to the extent that they even use name-calling and disrespect others in the project? Probably not. Where do you strike the balance between the two extremes? This has proved to be a difficult question for us, and it may also prove difficult for this fork too.
Good luck, and hopefully this conflict is easy to resolve. Best case scenario, it turns out there is not disagreement here and I was just misunderstanding the situation! 😅
