I agree. This is powerful.
Also agree.
As far as indication goes, a social media flare might be a little weird. It would create an “us” and “them” group. Whether or not that’s the intention, anything that allows for differentiation also allows for discrimination.
What about a file in the repo like what Aragon did, or like the people who supported the Pitchforks are for hay not hate letter? You could even bake it into a smart contract. People would opt-in by sending a tx to the contract. The action shows they really care, it’s publicly verifiable, and you can’t sign someone up without their consent. It’s also completely open so anyone can choose to join and contribute 
It’s essential to put thought into how disputes would be resolved. Otherwise at the first sign of trouble the entire system will devolve into a sea of confusion and frustration. If the system doesn’t work, no one will trust it. It needs to work. Do you guys have any ideas how we could test that out? Like would we have to role play various scenarios in a red team / blue team game like the infosec community? lol
Also, glad my suggestions were helpful. I don’t think it makes sense to put them in the main CoC doc, but they could become part of a supporting doc. That way if people opt-in to the CoC they’ll have the latest CoC doc to refer to, but also a set of supplementary guides. These could include:
- tips for conflict resolution,
- communication best practices,
- values the community shares, etc…
The CoC says what not to do. The supplementary guides could provide suggestions on what to do. This would help cap the downside of negative behaviors, but also provide support and direction for positive growth. It works for tomato plants ¯\_(ツ)_/¯