On 20 January 2016 at 19:05, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> > wrote: > > >> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views. > >> > >> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free > >> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. > >> > >> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants > >> should always assume good intentions. > >> > >> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a > >> pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be > >> tolerated. > > > I suggest we remove point 3 entirely. Point 2 is sufficient to limit > what is > > said. > > That came about because of the point made by someone for whom > English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone > by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that > was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant). > Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but > it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to > language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people > don't give each other some benefit of the doubt. > Which means that anyone who violates point 2 cannot be held to account, because doing so would violate point 3. I agree it is a great idea to assume the good intentions of others, but its a difficult principle to enforce. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
