Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Bruce Momjian]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 07:12:22AM +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> If we have a committer who loudly and proudly goes to neo-nazi rallies or
> pickup artist / pro-rape meetups, then actually yes, I have a problem with
> that. That impacts my ability to work in the community, impacts everyone's
> ability to recruit people to work on Postgres, potentially makes people
> reluctant to engage with the community, etc.
> 
> There's a problem here though. Generally in Europe, one would not be able to
> fire a person or even discriminate against him for such activity.  So if you
> kick someone out of the PostgreSQL community for doing such things in, say,
> Germany but their employer cannot fire them for the same, then you have a real
> problem if improving PostgreSQL is the basis of their employment.    EU
> antidiscrimination law includes political views and other opinions so
> internationally that line is actually very hard to push in an international
> project.  So I think you'd have a problem where such enforcement might 
> actually
> lead to legal action by the employer, or the individual kicked out, or both.

Yes, I had the same reaction.  Activity not involving other Postgres
members seems like it would not be covered by the CoC, except for
"behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into disrepute", which
seems like a stretch.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+  Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Robert Haas]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Tom Lane  wrote:
> There's been quite a lot of input, from quite a lot of people, dating
> back at least as far as a well-attended session at PGCon 2016.  I find
> it quite upsetting to hear accusations that core is imposing this out
> of nowhere.  From my perspective, we're responding to a real need
> voiced by other people, not so much by us.

Yeah, but there's a difference between input and agreement.  I don't
think there's been a mailing list thread anywhere at any time where a
clear majority of the people on that thread supported the idea of a
code of conduct.  I don't think that question has even been put.  I
don't think there's ever been a developer meeting where by a show of
hands the idea of a CoC, much less the specific text, got a clear
majority.  I don't think that any attempt has been made to do that,
either.  Core is (thankfully) not usually given to imposing new rules
on the community; we normally operate by consensus.  Why this specific
instance is an exception, as it certainly seems to be, is unclear to
me.

To be clear, I'm not saying that no harassment occurs in our
community.  I suspect women get harassed at our conferences.  I know
of only one specific incident that made me uncomfortable, and that was
quite a few years ago and the woman in question laughed it off when I
asked her if there was a problem, but I have heard rumors of other
things on occasion, and I just wouldn't be too surprised if we're not
all as nice in private as we pretend to be in public.  And on the
other hand, I think that mailing list discussions step over the line
to harassment from time to time even though that's in full public
view.  Regrettably, you and I have both been guilty of that from time
to time, as have many others.  I know that I, personally, have been
trying to be a lot more careful about the way I phrase criticism in
recent years; I hope that has been noticeable, but I only see it from
my own perspective, so I don't know.  Nonwithstanding, I would like to
see us, as a group, do better.  We should tolerate less bad behavior
in ourselves and in others, and however good or bad we are today as
people, we should try to be better people.

Whether or not the code of conduct plan that the core committee has
decided to implement is likely to move us in that direction remains
unclear to me.  I can't say I'm very impressed by the way the process
has been carried out up to this point; hopefully it will work out for
the best all the same.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Chris Travers]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:11 AM Craig Ringer  wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 23:11, James Keener  wrote:
>
>> And if you believe strongly that a given statement you may have made is
>>> not objectionable...you should be willing to defend it in an adjudication
>>> investigation.
>>
>>
>> So because someone doesn't like what I say in a venue 100% separate from
>> postgres,  I have to subject myself, and waste my time, defending actions
>> in this (and potentially other groups who would also adopt overly broad
>> CoC) group.
>>
>
> (Usual disclaimer, I speak for myself not my employer here):
>
> My understanding is that that's really only a concern for "Big Stuff".
>
> If we have a committer who loudly and proudly goes to neo-nazi rallies or
> pickup artist / pro-rape meetups, then actually yes, I have a problem with
> that. That impacts my ability to work in the community, impacts everyone's
> ability to recruit people to work on Postgres, potentially makes people
> reluctant to engage with the community, etc.
>

There's a problem here though. Generally in Europe, one would not be able
to fire a person or even discriminate against him for such activity.  So if
you kick someone out of the PostgreSQL community for doing such things in,
say, Germany but their employer cannot fire them for the same, then you
have a real problem if improving PostgreSQL is the basis of their
employment.EU antidiscrimination law includes political views and other
opinions so internationally that line is actually very hard to push in an
international project.  So I think you'd have a problem where such
enforcement might actually lead to legal action by the employer, or the
individual kicked out, or both.

If one of my reports were to come out in favor of the holocaust or Stalin's
purges, etc. I would not be allowed to use that as grounds to fire that
employee, even in Germany.  Now, if they communicated such aggressively at
work, I might.

This also highlights the problem of trying to enforce norms across global
projects.  My view simply is that we cannot.  There are probably some rare
cases even more extreme than this where enforcement globally might not be a
problem.

The goal of a code of conduct is to protect the community and this is
actually a hard problem which gets substantially harder as more cultures
and legal jurisdictions are included.  However there is also a topic of
global fairness.  Would we tolerate treating someone in, say, the US who
attended Neo-Nazi rallies worse than someone who attended right-wing
rallies in Europe?

So I think one has to go with least common denominator in these areas and
this is also why this really isn't that much of a problem.  The CoC really
cannot be enforced in the way which a lot of people fear without serious
consequences for the community and so I trust it won't.


>
> Thankfully we don't.
>

Agreed on that.

>
> I'm not sure how to codify it more clearly, though, and to a large degree
> I think it's a case of presuming good intent and good will amongst all
> parties.
>

At the end, human judgment has to rule.


>
> It's clear that if the CoC leans too far, there'll certainly be no
> shortage of proud defenders of liberty and free speech coming out of the
> woodwork, right? (But remember, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from
> consequences, even in nations that codify the concept of freedom of speech
> at all. You shouldn't face Government sanction for it, but your peers can
> still ostracise you, you can still get fired, etc.)
>

One of the standard European values is freedom of political opinion and the
idea that there must be no economic consequences of merely having unpopular
political opinions.  However there may be time/manner/place restrictions on
expressing those.

For example, Mozilla Corporation could ask Brendan Eich to leave because
they are an American corporation and this is solely about the American
leadership.  Therefore they don't have to deal with European laws.  I don't
think the same applies to us and certainly if they were to fire a developer
in Germany for more more abrasive political communications via facebook
etc. they would have a lawsuit on their hands.

The freedom to a) hold political ideas without consequence, and b)
communicate them civilly without consequence is something that I find many
people the US (and I assume Australia) find strange,


>
> One of the biggest drivers of plea-bargains for innocent people in the US
>> justice system is the expense of having to defend yourself. I find that to
>> be a travesty; why are we duplicating that at a smaller level?
>>
>
> Because the fact that it is at a smaller level makes it way less of a
> concern. No expensive lawyers. More likely we waste a lot of hot air. Like
> this mail, probably.
>
> There are intangible but very real (IMO) costs to being a community that
> welcomes an unhealthy and hostile communication style, harassment and
> personal attacks in the guise of technical argument, bully

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Craig Ringer]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 23:11, James Keener  wrote:

> And if you believe strongly that a given statement you may have made is
>> not objectionable...you should be willing to defend it in an adjudication
>> investigation.
>
>
> So because someone doesn't like what I say in a venue 100% separate from
> postgres,  I have to subject myself, and waste my time, defending actions
> in this (and potentially other groups who would also adopt overly broad
> CoC) group.
>

(Usual disclaimer, I speak for myself not my employer here):

My understanding is that that's really only a concern for "Big Stuff".

If we have a committer who loudly and proudly goes to neo-nazi rallies or
pickup artist / pro-rape meetups, then actually yes, I have a problem with
that. That impacts my ability to work in the community, impacts everyone's
ability to recruit people to work on Postgres, potentially makes people
reluctant to engage with the community, etc.

Thankfully we don't.

I'm not sure how to codify it more clearly, though, and to a large degree I
think it's a case of presuming good intent and good will amongst all
parties.

It's clear that if the CoC leans too far, there'll certainly be no shortage
of proud defenders of liberty and free speech coming out of the woodwork,
right? (But remember, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from
consequences, even in nations that codify the concept of freedom of speech
at all. You shouldn't face Government sanction for it, but your peers can
still ostracise you, you can still get fired, etc.)

One of the biggest drivers of plea-bargains for innocent people in the US
> justice system is the expense of having to defend yourself. I find that to
> be a travesty; why are we duplicating that at a smaller level?
>

Because the fact that it is at a smaller level makes it way less of a
concern. No expensive lawyers. More likely we waste a lot of hot air. Like
this mail, probably.

There are intangible but very real (IMO) costs to being a community that
welcomes an unhealthy and hostile communication style, harassment and
personal attacks in the guise of technical argument, bullying defended as
making sure you have the right stuff to survive in a "meritocracy", etc.
Thankfully we are generally not such a community. But try asking a few
women you know in the Postgres community - if you can find any! - how their
experience at conferences has been. Then ask if maybe there are still a few
things we could work on changing.

I've found it quite confronting dealing with some of the more heated
exchanges on hackers from some of our most prominent team members. I've
sent the occasional gentle note to ask someone to chill and pause before
replying, too. And I've deserved to receive one a couple of times, though I
never have, as I'm far from free from blame here.

People love to point to LKML as the way it "must" be done to succeed in
software. Yet slowly that community has also come to recognise that verbal
abuse under the cloak of technical discussion is harmful to quality
discussion and drives out good people, harming the community long term.
Sure, not everything has to be super-diplomatic, but there's no excuse for
verbal bullying and wilful use of verbal aggression either. As widely
publicised, even Linus has recently recognised aspects of this, despite
being the poster child of proponents of abusive leadership for decades.

We don't have a culture like that. So in practice, I don't imagine the CoC
will see much use. The real problematic stuff that happens in this
community happens in conference halls and occasionally by private mail,
usually in the face of a power imbalance that makes the recipient/victim
reluctant to speak out. I hope a formal CoC will give them some hope
they'll be heard if they do take the personal risk to speak up. I've seen
so much victim blaming in tech that I'm not convinced most people
experiencing problems will be willing to speak out anyway, but hopefully
they'll be more so with a private and receptive group to talk to.

Let me be clear here, I'm no fan of trial by rabid mob. That's part of why
something like the CoC and a backing body is important. Otherwise people
are often forced to silently endure, or go loudly public. The latter tends
to result in a big messy explosion that hurts the community, those saying
they're victim(s) and the alleged perpetrator(s), no matter what the facts
and outcomes. It also encourages people to jump on one comment and run way
too far with it, instead of looking at patterns and giving people chances
to fix their behaviour.

I don't want us to have this:
https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spiraled-way-out-of-control/
. Which is actually why I favour a CoC, one with a resolution process and
encouragement toward some common sense. Every player in that story was an
idiot, and while none deserved the abuse and harrassment that came their
way, it's a shame it wan't handled by a complaint to a conference CoC group
instead.

I'd like

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Tom Lane]

Tatsuo Ishii  writes:
> Now that CoC is out,
> https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/
> I would like to start the translation work.  Can somebody suggest me
> how I can proceed?

Sure, translate away.  Probably the -www list is the place to discuss
questions like where it would appear on the website.

regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Tatsuo Ishii]

>>> Do we want official translations of this? We allow local communities
>>> do their own manual translations. However CoC is so important, I feel
>>> like we need more for Coc. Good thing with CoC is, it is expected that
>>> it would be stable (at least I hope so) and translation works when
>>> it's changed is expected to be minimal, unlike the manual translation
>>> works.
>> 
>> Good idea, but let's wait till the text is official; I'm not sure if
>> we'll change the draft again in response to the current discussions.
> 
> Of course. I will wait for the text to be settled down.

Now that CoC is out,

https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/

I would like to start the translation work.  Can somebody suggest me
how I can proceed?

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[ERR ORR]

I see a CoC as an infiltration of the PostgreSQL community which has worked
OK since at least 10 years.
The project owners have let their care slacken.
I request that the project owners EXPEL/EXCOMMUNICATE ALL those who are
advancing what can only be seen as an instrument for harassing members of a
to-date peaceful and cordial community.

THROW THESE LEFTIST BULLIES OUT‼️

Dimitri Maziuk  schrieb am Mo., 17. Sep. 2018, 19:21:

> On 09/17/2018 10:39 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:28 PM Joshua D. Drake 
> > wrote:
> ...
> >> My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching authority
> >> that .Org does not have the right to enforce
> ...
> > Fascinating that this would, on its face, not apply to a harassment
> > campaign carried out over twitter, but it would apply to a few comments
> > made over drinks at a bar.
>
> There is a flip side: if you have written standards, you can be held
> liable for not enforcing them. Potentially including enforcement of
> twitbook AUP on the list subscribers who also have a slackogger account.
>
> --
> Dimitri Maziuk
> Programmer/sysadmin
> BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu
>
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On 09/17/2018 10:39 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:28 PM Joshua D. Drake 
> wrote:
...
>> My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching authority
>> that .Org does not have the right to enforce 
...
> Fascinating that this would, on its face, not apply to a harassment
> campaign carried out over twitter, but it would apply to a few comments
> made over drinks at a bar.

There is a flip side: if you have written standards, you can be held
liable for not enforcing them. Potentially including enforcement of
twitbook AUP on the list subscribers who also have a slackogger account.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Chris Travers]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:08 PM Steve Litt 
wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:39:20 +0200
> Chris Travers  wrote:
>
>
> > Exactly.  And actually the first sentence is not new.  The second one
> > is a real problem though.  I am going to try one last time at an
> > additional alternative.
> >
> > " To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community
> > interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community
> > at large.   This code of conduct covers all interaction between
> > community members on the postgresql.org infrastructure.  Conduct
> > outside the postgresql.org infrastructure may call the Code of
> > Conduct committee to act as long as the interaction (or interaction
> > pattern) is community-related, other parties are unable to act, and
> > the Code of Conduct committee determines that it is in the best
> > interest of the community to apply this Code of Conduct."
>
> Chris,
>
> Would you be satisfied with the CoC if the current 2nd paragraph of the
> Introduction were replaced by the paragraph you wrote above?
>

Yes.  Or something like it.  It need not be exact.

I recognize a need  to be able to take enforcement to some areas off-list
activity, for what it's worth.

>
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Steve Atkins]

> On Sep 17, 2018, at 4:57 PM, Steve Litt  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 08:27:48 -0700
> "Joshua D. Drake"  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> At this point it is important to accept that the CoC is happening. We 
>> aren't going to stop that. The goal now is to insure a CoC that is 
>> equitable for all community members and that has appropriate 
>> accountability. At hand it appears that major concern is the CoC
>> trying to be authoritative outside of community channels. As well as
>> wording that is a bit far reaching. Specifically I think people's
>> main concern is these two sentences:
>> 
>> "To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community 
>> interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community
>> at large. This Code is meant to cover all interaction between
>> community members, whether or not it takes place within
>> postgresql.org infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code
>> of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a conference's Code of
>> Conduct)."
>> 
>> If we can constructively provide feedback about those two sentences, 
>> great (or constructive feedback on other areas of the CoC). If we
>> can't then this thread needs to stop. It has become unproductive.
>> 
>> My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching
>> authority that .Org does not have the right to enforce and that it is
>> also largely redundant because we allow that the idea that if another
>> CoC exists, then ours doesn't apply. Well every single major
>> collaboration channel we would be concerned with (including something
>> like Blogger) has its own CoC within its Terms of use. That
>> effectively neuters the PostgreSQL CoC within places like Slack,
>> Facebook, Twitter etc...
> 
> The perfect is the enemy of the good. Whatever CoC is decided upon, it
> will be updated later. If it's easier, for now, to pass it with
> enforcement WITHIN the Postgres community, why not do that? If, later
> on, we get instances of people retaliating, in other venues, for
> positions taken in Postgres, that can be handled when it comes up.

I'll note that a fairly common situation with mailing lists I've seen is people
taking an on-list disagreement off-list and being offensive there. I've not
had that happen to me personally on the pgsql-* lists, but I have had it
happen on other technical mailing lists. That harassment would be "outside
of community channels".

A CoC that doesn't cover that situation (or it's equivalent on IRC) isn't
going to be particularly easy to apply.

Whether the CoC can be applied or not isn't necessarily the most important
thing about it - it's more a statement of beliefs - but if the situation comes
up where someone is behaving unacceptably via IRC or email and "we"
say that we aren't interested in helping, or our hands are tied, because
"off-list" communication isn't covered by the CoC that's likely to lead to
a loud and public mess.

Cheers,
  Steve

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Steve Litt]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:39:20 +0200
Chris Travers  wrote:


> Exactly.  And actually the first sentence is not new.  The second one
> is a real problem though.  I am going to try one last time at an
> additional alternative.
> 
> " To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community
> interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community
> at large.   This code of conduct covers all interaction between
> community members on the postgresql.org infrastructure.  Conduct
> outside the postgresql.org infrastructure may call the Code of
> Conduct committee to act as long as the interaction (or interaction
> pattern) is community-related, other parties are unable to act, and
> the Code of Conduct committee determines that it is in the best
> interest of the community to apply this Code of Conduct."

Chris,

Would you be satisfied with the CoC if the current 2nd paragraph of the
Introduction were replaced by the paragraph you wrote above?

 
SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Steve Litt]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 08:27:48 -0700
"Joshua D. Drake"  wrote:

> On 09/17/2018 08:11 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 +
> > Martin Mueller  wrote:
> >  
> >> ... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical
> >> grounds. "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good
> >> advice in this context.  
> > Moderated mailing lists ain't been broken all these years,
> > therefore they need fixing. Obviously.  
> 
> Folks,
> 
> At this point it is important to accept that the CoC is happening. We 
> aren't going to stop that. The goal now is to insure a CoC that is 
> equitable for all community members and that has appropriate 
> accountability. At hand it appears that major concern is the CoC
> trying to be authoritative outside of community channels. As well as
> wording that is a bit far reaching. Specifically I think people's
> main concern is these two sentences:
> 
> "To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community 
> interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community
> at large. This Code is meant to cover all interaction between
> community members, whether or not it takes place within
> postgresql.org infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code
> of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a conference's Code of
> Conduct)."
> 
> If we can constructively provide feedback about those two sentences, 
> great (or constructive feedback on other areas of the CoC). If we
> can't then this thread needs to stop. It has become unproductive.
> 
> My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching
> authority that .Org does not have the right to enforce and that it is
> also largely redundant because we allow that the idea that if another
> CoC exists, then ours doesn't apply. Well every single major
> collaboration channel we would be concerned with (including something
> like Blogger) has its own CoC within its Terms of use. That
> effectively neuters the PostgreSQL CoC within places like Slack,
> Facebook, Twitter etc...

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Whatever CoC is decided upon, it
will be updated later. If it's easier, for now, to pass it with
enforcement WITHIN the Postgres community, why not do that? If, later
on, we get instances of people retaliating, in other venues, for
positions taken in Postgres, that can be handled when it comes up.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Chris Travers]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:28 PM Joshua D. Drake 
wrote:

> On 09/17/2018 08:11 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 +
> Martin Mueller  
>  wrote:
>
>
> ... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. 
> "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good advice in this 
> context.
>
> Moderated mailing lists ain't been broken all these years, therefore they 
> need fixing. Obviously.
>
>
> Folks,
>
> At this point it is important to accept that the CoC is happening. We
> aren't going to stop that. The goal now is to insure a CoC that is
> equitable for all community members and that has appropriate
> accountability. At hand it appears that major concern is the CoC trying to
> be authoritative outside of community channels. As well as wording that is
> a bit far reaching. Specifically I think people's main concern is these two
> sentences:
>
> "To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community
> interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community at
> large. This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community
> members, whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org
> infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes
> precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>

Exactly.  And actually the first sentence is not new.  The second one is a
real problem though.  I am going to try one last time at an additional
alternative.

" To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community
interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community at
large.   This code of conduct covers all interaction between community
members on the postgresql.org infrastructure.  Conduct outside the
postgresql.org infrastructure may call the Code of Conduct committee to act
as long as the interaction (or interaction pattern) is community-related,
other parties are unable to act, and the Code of Conduct committee
determines that it is in the best interest of the community to apply this
Code of Conduct."

This solves a number of important problems.

1.  It provides a backstop (as Tom Lane suggested was needed) against a
conference refusing to enforce their own code of conduct in a way the
community finds acceptable while the current wording does not provide any
backstop as long as there is a code of conduct for a conference.
2.  It provides a significant barrier to applying the code of conduct to,
say, political posts on, say, Twitter.
3.  It preserves the ability of the Code of Conduct Committee to act in the
case where someone takes a pattern of harassment off-list and
off-infrastructure.  And it avoids arguing whether Facebook's Community
Standards constitute "another Code of Conduct that takes precedence."

>
> If we can constructively provide feedback about those two sentences, great
> (or constructive feedback on other areas of the CoC). If we can't then this
> thread needs to stop. It has become unproductive.
>
> My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching authority
> that .Org does not have the right to enforce and that it is also largely
> redundant because we allow that the idea that if another CoC exists, then
> ours doesn't apply. Well every single major collaboration channel we would
> be concerned with (including something like Blogger) has its own CoC within
> its Terms of use. That effectively neuters the PostgreSQL CoC within places
> like Slack, Facebook, Twitter etc...
>

Fascinating that this would, on its face, not apply to a harassment
campaign carried out over twitter, but it would apply to a few comments
made over drinks at a bar.

>
> JD
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
> ***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
> PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
> Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
> * Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 09/17/2018 08:11 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 +
Martin Mueller  wrote:


... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. "Stick to 
your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good advice in this context.

Moderated mailing lists ain't been broken all these years, therefore they need 
fixing. Obviously.


Folks,

At this point it is important to accept that the CoC is happening. We 
aren't going to stop that. The goal now is to insure a CoC that is 
equitable for all community members and that has appropriate 
accountability. At hand it appears that major concern is the CoC trying 
to be authoritative outside of community channels. As well as wording 
that is a bit far reaching. Specifically I think people's main concern 
is these two sentences:


"To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community 
interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community at 
large. This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community 
members, whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org 
infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that 
takes precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."


If we can constructively provide feedback about those two sentences, 
great (or constructive feedback on other areas of the CoC). If we can't 
then this thread needs to stop. It has become unproductive.


My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching authority 
that .Org does not have the right to enforce and that it is also largely 
redundant because we allow that the idea that if another CoC exists, 
then ours doesn't apply. Well every single major collaboration channel 
we would be concerned with (including something like Blogger) has its 
own CoC within its Terms of use. That effectively neuters the PostgreSQL 
CoC within places like Slack, Facebook, Twitter etc...


JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dmitri Maziuk]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 +
Martin Mueller  wrote:

> ... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. 
> "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good advice in this 
> context. 

Moderated mailing lists ain't been broken all these years, therefore they need 
fixing. Obviously.

-- 
Dmitri Maziuk 

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Steve Litt]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:00:31 +1200
Mark Kirkwood  wrote:


> a SJW agenda. 

>  the angry militant left.

Some people just can't stop themselves.

Which is a big reason for CoCs.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

RE: Code of Conduct plan

[farjad . farid]

Dear All,

If we allow friendship and fellowship to flourish everyone benefits. That 
doesn't mean we should drop our standards or quality. 

It is worth remembering that all human beings are social animals(basic logic) 
so even the most logical person could get offended and turn off from 
contributing to overall consultations, we can say everything with moderation 
and consult with compassion. 

Say your piece but don't insist on it, we are all busy, repetitive arguments 
over the same points is a turn off for most people. Especially for a community 
based projects. 

Personally I have no problem with a code conduct. After all most people agree 
that, even a mundane thing like crossing a road needs rules, 
so something as complex as human interactions also needs rules. 

That's my two cent worth of contribution. 

Best Regards


Farjad Farid
 

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dmitri Maziuk]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 16:12:36 -0700
Adrian Klaver  wrote:

> https://marshmallow.readthedocs.io/en/dev/code_of_conduct.html

Personally I don't give a toss about politolosophy, I think idiocy, no matter 
how well-meaning, is still idiocy and is probably contaguious via 
"normalization of idiocy". Since "god won't save us from well-meaning people" 
and "you can't overcome stupid", the only rational option left is not to march 
with them.

-- 
Dmitri Maziuk 

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Martin Mueller]

As long as subscribers to the list or attendants at a conference do not violate 
explicit or implicit house rules, what business does Postgres have worrying 
about what they do or say elsewhere?  Some version of an 'all-of-life' clause 
may be appropriate to the Marines or  federal judges, but it strikes me as 
overreach for a technical listserv whose subject is a particular relational 
database. The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. 
"Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good advice in this 
context. 

On 9/16/18, 7:08 AM, "Stephen Cook"  wrote:

On 2018-09-16 00:00, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 15/09/18 08:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, this.  The PG community is mostly nice people, AFAICT.  I'll be
>> astonished (and worried) if the CoC committee finds much to do.  We're
>> implementing this mostly to make newcomers to the project feel that
>> it's a safe space.
> 
> Agreed. However I think the all-of-life clause gives an open door to
> potential less than well intentioned new members joining up to extend a
> SJW agenda. So in fact the unintended consequence of this may be a
> *less* safe place for some existing members - unless all of their social
> media utterances are agreeable to the angry militant left.

This is my only concern, there are some very sensitive people out there
just looking for scandal / publicity. No reason to give them a larger
attack surface. Maybe that sounds paranoid but look around, there are
folks that want to spread the US culture war to every front, including
open source projects on the internet.

This sentence in the CoC should be worded to exclude things that are not
directed harassment when outside of the community spaces. For example,
some "incorrect opinion" on Twitter should have little bearing if it
wasn't meant as an "attack". Maybe for extreme cases there could be a
"hey you're making us look bad and scaring people away, chill with the
hate speech or leave" clause, but that should only apply if it is
someone whose name is publicly associated with Postgres and they are
saying really terrible things. I feel there is a big difference between
keeping it civil/safe in the lists and conferences, and making people
afraid to say anything controversial (in the USA) anywhere ever.

Maybe the way the committee is set up, it will handle this fairly. But
it's better to be explicit about it IMO, so as not to attract
professional complainers.


-- Stephen

Code of Conduct plan

[Stephen Cook]

On 2018-09-16 00:00, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 15/09/18 08:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, this.  The PG community is mostly nice people, AFAICT.  I'll be
>> astonished (and worried) if the CoC committee finds much to do.  We're
>> implementing this mostly to make newcomers to the project feel that
>> it's a safe space.
> 
> Agreed. However I think the all-of-life clause gives an open door to
> potential less than well intentioned new members joining up to extend a
> SJW agenda. So in fact the unintended consequence of this may be a
> *less* safe place for some existing members - unless all of their social
> media utterances are agreeable to the angry militant left.

This is my only concern, there are some very sensitive people out there
just looking for scandal / publicity. No reason to give them a larger
attack surface. Maybe that sounds paranoid but look around, there are
folks that want to spread the US culture war to every front, including
open source projects on the internet.

This sentence in the CoC should be worded to exclude things that are not
directed harassment when outside of the community spaces. For example,
some "incorrect opinion" on Twitter should have little bearing if it
wasn't meant as an "attack". Maybe for extreme cases there could be a
"hey you're making us look bad and scaring people away, chill with the
hate speech or leave" clause, but that should only apply if it is
someone whose name is publicly associated with Postgres and they are
saying really terrible things. I feel there is a big difference between
keeping it civil/safe in the lists and conferences, and making people
afraid to say anything controversial (in the USA) anywhere ever.

Maybe the way the committee is set up, it will handle this fairly. But
it's better to be explicit about it IMO, so as not to attract
professional complainers.


-- Stephen

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Chris Travers]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 8:11 PM Tom Lane  wrote:

> Martin Mueller  writes:
> > Which makes me say again "Where is the problem that needs solving?"
>
> We've re-litigated that point in each burst of CoC discussion for the
> last two-plus years, I think.  But, one more time:
>
> * So far as the mailing lists alone are concerned, we likely don't really
> need a CoC; on-list incidents have been pretty few and far between.
> However, there *have* been unfortunate incidents at conferences and in
> other real-life contexts.  Core has been encouraging conference organizers
> to create their own CoCs, but (a) they might want a model to follow;
> (b) there needs to be a community-level backstop in case of failure of
> a conference to have or enforce a CoC; and (c) conferences aren't the
> only point of contact between community members.
>

As a note, the current CoC wording appears to explicitly exempt enforcement
from conferences as long as they have their own CoC (whatever either the
terms or the implementation).  So point b is not resolved at all and under
this there is no community backstop if we take the text at face value.

"This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure, **so
long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as
a conference's Code of Conduct).**" [emphasis mine]

Hence I think it would be better to suggest a more nuanced line, one where
acting on things off list etc is subject to the overall balance of
community interest and an inability of other parties to act.  If the goal
is to give conferences an ability to enforce their own rules, with a
community backstop, then one needs a functional, not merely formal line.
If the goal is a sort of subsidiarity, then such a functional line is
better too.

So I would recommend changing that to "This code of conduct may be applied
to conduct on or off community resources so long as the conduct is related
to the community,  other parties are unable to act, and it is in the
community's interest to apply the this code of conduct."

That more or less explicitly puts the decisions on where and when to apply
it in the hands of the committee, which is probably better than promising a
large scope and then telling new folks "sorry, that isn't covered" after
setting expectations to the contrary.

>
> * This isn't really directed at people who already participate in our
> mailing lists.  The reason for setting up a formal CoC is to reassure
> potential new contributors that the Postgres project offers a safe
> environment for them.  As has been pointed out before, a lot of people
> now feel that some sort of CoC is a minimum requirement for them to
> want to deal with a community.  Whether you and I find that a bit too
> shrinking-violety isn't relevant; if we want to keep attracting new
> participants, we have to get with the program.
>
> Now, the hazard in that of course is that someone will come in and
> try to use the CoC mechanism to force the PG community to adopt that
> person's standards of conduct.  It'll be up to the CoC committee
> (and core, in the case of appeals) to say no, what you're complaining
> about is well within this community's normal standards.  That's a
> reason why a two-line CoC isn't a good idea; it leaves too much to
> be read into it.
>

It's worth noting that in the cases I am concerned about, the CoC committee
would have to decline the complaint.  I am not worried about them acting
badly.  What I am worried about are people getting worked up about
something outside the community when someone who complains gets told no.

>
> Anyway, the short answer here is that we've been debating CoC wording
> for more than two years already, and it's time to stop debating and
> just get it done.  We're really not going to entertain "let's rewrite
> this completely" suggestions at this point.
>


Agreed on not rewriting completely.  However the particular recent addition
I am objecting to is relatively troubling for a reason.

Personally, I felt like we were assured when this process started that a
code of conduct would regulate on-infrastructure behavior only.  Now, for
reasons you have said, that scope is too narrow and I understand that.
Those reasons and the issues behind them have been discussed from the
beginning, and so I don't really object to broadening the scope to things
like campaigns of personal harassment including in real life, etc.  I
recognize that to be totally necessary.

However, the addition goes way beyond that and it feels like a full
reversal of a promise that was made to the community much earlier to try to
keep the code of conduct from something that could be used to apply
pressure from outside to get rid of community members for activity that is
not related to PostgreSQL (in particular, unrelated political involvement,
opinions, and participation).

If you aren't open to rewriting even that one sentence, I hop

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Mark Kirkwood]

On 15/09/18 08:17, Tom Lane wrote:

Yeah, this.  The PG community is mostly nice people, AFAICT.  I'll be
astonished (and worried) if the CoC committee finds much to do.  We're
implementing this mostly to make newcomers to the project feel that
it's a safe space.


Agreed. However I think the all-of-life clause gives an open door to 
potential less than well intentioned new members joining up to extend a 
SJW agenda. So in fact the unintended consequence of this may be a 
*less* safe place for some existing members - unless all of their social 
media utterances are agreeable to the angry militant left.



It's also worth reminding people that this is v1.0 of the CoC document.
We plan to revisit it in a year or so, and thereafter as needed, to
improve anything that's causing problems or not working well.


+1, At least this means we can address the above if it emerges as a problem

regards
Mark


regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Adrian Klaver]

On 9/14/18 11:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Dave Page  wrote:

That wording has been in the published draft for 18 months, and noone
objected to it that I'm aware of. There will always be people who don't like
some of the wording, much as there are often people who disagree with the
way a patch to the code is written. Sooner or later though, the general
consensus prevails and we have to move on, otherwise nothing will ever get
completed.


It's not clear to me that there IS a general consensus here.  It looks
to me like the unelected core team got together and decided to impose
a vaguely-worded code of conduct on a vaguely-defined group of people
covering not only their work on PostgreSQL but also their entire life.
It is not difficult to imagine that someone's private life might
include "behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into
disrepute."

However, I also don't think it matters very much.  The Code of Conduct
Committee is going to consist of small number of people -- at least
four, perhaps a few more.  But there are hundreds of people involved
on the PostgreSQL mailing lists, maybe thousands.  If the Code of
Conduct Committee, or the core team, believes that it can impose on a
very large group of people, all of whom are volunteers, some set of
rules with which they don't agree, it's probably going to find out
pretty quickly that it is mistaken.  If people from that large group
get banned for behavior which is perceived by other members of that
large group to be legitimate, then there will be a ferocious backlash.
Nobody wants to see people who are willing to contribute driven away
from the project, and anyone we drive away without a really good
reason will find some other project that welcomes their participation.
So the only thing that the Code of Conduct Committee is likely to be
able to do in practice is admonish people to be nicer (which is
probably a good thing) and punish really egregious conduct, especially
when committed by people who aren't involved enough that their absence
will be keenly felt.

In practice, therefore, democracy is going to win out.  That's both
good and bad.  It's good because nobody wants a CoC witch-hunt, and
it's bad because there's probably some behavior which legitimately
deserves censure and will escape it.



+1

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Adrian Klaver]

On 9/14/18 11:21 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Dimitri Maziuk  wrote:

Personally I would like that. Others might prefer an invitation to
unsubscribe or forever hold their peace, I could live with that too, but
I believe explicit opt-ins are preferable to opt-outs.


I think that it's a legitimate position to be opposed to a CoC like
this. I also think it's legitimate to feel so strongly about it, on
philosophical or political grounds, that you are compelled to avoid
participating while subject to the CoC. FWIW, the latter position
seems rather extreme to me personally, but I still respect it.


I understand it.

This:

https://marshmallow.readthedocs.io/en/dev/code_of_conduct.html

caused me to quit using Marshmallow in my projects.



In all sincerity, if you're compelled to walk away from participating
in mailing list discussions on a point of principle, then I wish you
well. That is your right.




--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Tom Lane]

Martin Mueller  writes:
> Which makes me say again "Where is the problem that needs solving?"

We've re-litigated that point in each burst of CoC discussion for the
last two-plus years, I think.  But, one more time:

* So far as the mailing lists alone are concerned, we likely don't really
need a CoC; on-list incidents have been pretty few and far between.
However, there *have* been unfortunate incidents at conferences and in
other real-life contexts.  Core has been encouraging conference organizers
to create their own CoCs, but (a) they might want a model to follow;
(b) there needs to be a community-level backstop in case of failure of
a conference to have or enforce a CoC; and (c) conferences aren't the
only point of contact between community members.

* This isn't really directed at people who already participate in our
mailing lists.  The reason for setting up a formal CoC is to reassure
potential new contributors that the Postgres project offers a safe
environment for them.  As has been pointed out before, a lot of people
now feel that some sort of CoC is a minimum requirement for them to
want to deal with a community.  Whether you and I find that a bit too
shrinking-violety isn't relevant; if we want to keep attracting new
participants, we have to get with the program.

Now, the hazard in that of course is that someone will come in and
try to use the CoC mechanism to force the PG community to adopt that
person's standards of conduct.  It'll be up to the CoC committee
(and core, in the case of appeals) to say no, what you're complaining
about is well within this community's normal standards.  That's a
reason why a two-line CoC isn't a good idea; it leaves too much to
be read into it.

Anyway, the short answer here is that we've been debating CoC wording
for more than two years already, and it's time to stop debating and
just get it done.  We're really not going to entertain "let's rewrite
this completely" suggestions at this point.

regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Martin Mueller]

That is quite true: the very high quotient of helpful prose and very low 
quotient of inappropriate language is striking--much like the TEI list of which 
I long have been a member, and unlike the MySQL list, which has a non-trivial 
(though not serious)  boorish component. 

Which makes me say again "Where is the problem that needs solving?"

On 9/15/18, 11:32 AM, "Bruce Momjian"  wrote:

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 04:24:38PM +, Martin Mueller wrote:
> What counts as foul language has changed a great deal in the last two 
decades. 
> You could always tie it to what is printable in the New York Times, but 
that
> too is changing. I could live with something like “Be considerate, and if 
you
> can’t be nice, be at least civil”.

I have to admit I am surprised how polite the language is here,
considering how crudely some other open source projects communicate.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__momjian.us&d=DwIDaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=TJILWn2nTs3E72LB1XpPNrNBCTYdMYWcTUevA54MIgM&s=jP360tfk8zSE3PhzhCJ5PSD_h8HnzqLCs4jFe5nUddE&e=
  EnterpriseDB 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__enterprisedb.com&d=DwIDaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=TJILWn2nTs3E72LB1XpPNrNBCTYdMYWcTUevA54MIgM&s=EHp2yUxMzSrJsO0jCYJM4dq7m35j69Aec87OEBfXaP8&e=

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+  Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:11:37PM -0400, Melvin Davidson wrote:

> How about we just simplify the code of conduct to the following:
> Any member in the various PostgreSQL lists is expected to maintain
> respect to others and not use foul language. A variation from
> the previous sentence shall be considered a violation of the CoC.

That is, unfortunately, not possible, because "foul language"
is quite definitional to a large extent.

Functioning communities can usually intrinsically develop,
informally agree upon, and pragmatically enforce a workable
definition for themselves.

And often it will be extremely hard to *codify* such working
definitions to even remotely the same degree of success.

Karsten
-- 
GPG  40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6  5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Bruce Momjian]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 04:24:38PM +, Martin Mueller wrote:
> What counts as foul language has changed a great deal in the last two 
> decades. 
> You could always tie it to what is printable in the New York Times, but that
> too is changing. I could live with something like “Be considerate, and if you
> can’t be nice, be at least civil”.

I have to admit I am surprised how polite the language is here,
considering how crudely some other open source projects communicate.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+  Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Martin Mueller]

What counts as foul language has changed a great deal in the last two decades.  
You could always tie it to what is printable in the New York Times, but that 
too is changing. I could live with something like “Be considerate, and if you 
can’t be nice, be at least civil”.

From: Melvin Davidson 
Date: Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 11:12 AM
To: Tom Lane 
Cc: Bruce Momjian , Chris Travers , 
James Keener , Steve Litt , 
"pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org" 
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct plan

How about we just simplify the code of conduct to the following:
Any member in the various PostgreSQL lists is expected to maintain
respect to others and not use foul language. A variation from
the previous sentence shall be considered a violation of the CoC.

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 11:51 AM Tom Lane 
mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
Bruce Momjian mailto:br...@momjian.us>> writes:
> There is a risk that if we adopt a CoC, and nothing happens, and the
> committee does nothing, that they will feel like a failure, and get
> involved when it was best they did nothing.  I think the CoC tries to
> address that, but nothing is perfect.

Yeah, a busybody CoC committee could do more harm than good.
The way the CoC tries to address that is that the committee can't
initiate action of its own accord: somebody has to bring it a complaint.

Of course, a member of the committee could go out and find a "problem"
and then file a complaint --- but then they'd have to recuse themselves
from dealing with that complaint, so there's an incentive not to.

regards, tom lane


--
Melvin Davidson
Maj. Database & Exploration Specialist
Universe Exploration Command – UXC
Employment by invitation only!

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Melvin Davidson]

How about we just simplify the code of conduct to the following:
Any member in the various PostgreSQL lists is expected to maintain
respect to others and not use foul language. A variation from
the previous sentence shall be considered a violation of the CoC.


On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 11:51 AM Tom Lane  wrote:

> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > There is a risk that if we adopt a CoC, and nothing happens, and the
> > committee does nothing, that they will feel like a failure, and get
> > involved when it was best they did nothing.  I think the CoC tries to
> > address that, but nothing is perfect.
>
> Yeah, a busybody CoC committee could do more harm than good.
> The way the CoC tries to address that is that the committee can't
> initiate action of its own accord: somebody has to bring it a complaint.
>
> Of course, a member of the committee could go out and find a "problem"
> and then file a complaint --- but then they'd have to recuse themselves
> from dealing with that complaint, so there's an incentive not to.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>

-- 
*Melvin Davidson*
*Maj. Database & Exploration Specialist*
*Universe Exploration Command – UXC*
Employment by invitation only!

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Tom Lane]

Bruce Momjian  writes:
> There is a risk that if we adopt a CoC, and nothing happens, and the
> committee does nothing, that they will feel like a failure, and get
> involved when it was best they did nothing.  I think the CoC tries to
> address that, but nothing is perfect.

Yeah, a busybody CoC committee could do more harm than good.
The way the CoC tries to address that is that the committee can't
initiate action of its own accord: somebody has to bring it a complaint.

Of course, a member of the committee could go out and find a "problem"
and then file a complaint --- but then they'd have to recuse themselves
from dealing with that complaint, so there's an incentive not to.

regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Bruce Momjian]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 11:32:06AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> There is a risk that if we adopt a CoC, and nothing happens, and the
> committee does nothing, that they will feel like a failure, and get
> involved when it was best they did nothing.  I think the CoC tries to
> address that, but nothing is perfect.

I think this is Parkinson's law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law

We might want to put something in the next draft CoC saying that the
committee is a success if it does nothing.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+  Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Bruce Momjian]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 08:44:10AM +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> The protection there is a culturally diverse code of conduct committee who can
> then understand the relationship between politics and culture.  And just to
> note, you can't solve problems of abuse by adopting mechanistically applied
> rules.
> 
> Also a lot of the major commercial players have large teams in areas where
> there is a legal right to not face discrimination on the basis of political
> opinion.  So I don't see merely expressing an unpopular political opinion as
> something the code of conduct committee could ever find actionable, nor do I
> think political donations or membership in political or religious 
> organizations
> etc would be easy to make actionable.

Well, we could all express our unpopular opinions on this channel and
give it a try.  ;-)  I think some have already, and nothing has happened
to them.  With a CoC, I assume that will remain true.

> But I understand the sense of insecurity.  Had I not spent time working in 
> Asia
> and Europe, my concerns would be far more along these lines.  As it is, I 
> don't
> think the code of conduct committee will allow themselves to be used to cause
> continental splits in the community or to internationalize the politics of the
> US.

Agreed, and that is by design.  If anything, the CoC team plus the core
team have even more diversity than the core team alone.

> I think the bigger issue is that our community *will* take flak and possibly 
> be
> harmed if there is an expectation set that picking fights in this way over
> political opinions is accepted.  Because while I don't see the current
> community taking action on the basis of political views, I do see a problem
> more generally with how these fights get picked and would prefer to see some
> softening of language to protect the community in that case.  But again, I am
> probably being paranoid.

Well, before the CoC, anything could have happened since there were no
rules at all about how such problems were handled, or not handled. 

There is a risk that if we adopt a CoC, and nothing happens, and the
committee does nothing, that they will feel like a failure, and get
involved when it was best they did nothing.  I think the CoC tries to
address that, but nothing is perfect.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+  Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Olivier Gautherot]

Dear all,

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:18 PM Tom Lane  wrote:

> Robert Haas  writes:
> > It's not clear to me that there IS a general consensus here.  It looks
> > to me like the unelected core team got together and decided to impose
> > a vaguely-worded code of conduct on a vaguely-defined group of people
> > covering not only their work on PostgreSQL but also their entire life.
>
> There's been quite a lot of input, from quite a lot of people, dating
> back at least as far as a well-attended session at PGCon 2016.  I find
> it quite upsetting to hear accusations that core is imposing this out
> of nowhere.  From my perspective, we're responding to a real need
> voiced by other people, not so much by us.
>
> > However, I also don't think it matters very much.
>
> Yeah, this.  The PG community is mostly nice people, AFAICT.  I'll be
> astonished (and worried) if the CoC committee finds much to do.  We're
> implementing this mostly to make newcomers to the project feel that
> it's a safe space.
>
> It's also worth reminding people that this is v1.0 of the CoC document.
> We plan to revisit it in a year or so, and thereafter as needed, to
> improve anything that's causing problems or not working well.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

I must admit that I'm impressed by the huge amount of contributions to this
thread and, to be honest, it is the only one I have witnessed that would
have deserved a CoC. I had a quick look at the proposal and it sounds to me
like the team is trying to handle excesses - as long as no one complains, I
would bet that they won't even chime in.

One thing to keep in mind is this simple definition: "One person's freedom
ends where another's begins" and all the work should go in this direction.
We are all different, have different sensitivities, come from different
cultures where we interpret words in a different way - it's a given, no way
to escape. But we have in common the love of a great piece of software
provided by a very active and efficient community.

Why don't we focus on what unites us, instead of what creates divisions?

Have a peaceful week-end
Olivier

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Chris Travers]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 4:47 AM James Keener  wrote:

>
>
> The preceding's pretty simple. An attacker goes after an individual,
>> presumably without provocation and/or asymetrically. The attacked
>> person is on this mailing list. IMHO this attacker must choose between
>> continuing his attacks, and belonging to the Postgres community.
>>
>> What's tougher is the person who attacks groups of people.
>>
>>
> The preceding's pretty simple. An "attacker" voices their political
> opinions
> or other unorthodoxy or unpopular stance, but in no way directs it at the
> postgres user base or on a postgres list. The "attacked"
> person is on this mailing list. IMHO this "attacker" must choose between
> continuing to voice their opinion, and belonging to the Postgres community.
>

The protection there is a culturally diverse code of conduct committee who
can then understand the relationship between politics and culture.  And
just to note, you can't solve problems of abuse by adopting mechanistically
applied rules.

Also a lot of the major commercial players have large teams in areas where
there is a legal right to not face discrimination on the basis of political
opinion.  So I don't see merely expressing an unpopular political opinion
as something the code of conduct committee could ever find actionable, nor
do I think political donations or membership in political or religious
organizations etc would be easy to make actionable.

But I understand the sense of insecurity.  Had I not spent time working in
Asia and Europe, my concerns would be far more along these lines.  As it
is, I don't think the code of conduct committee will allow themselves to be
used to cause continental splits in the community or to internationalize
the politics of the US.

I think the bigger issue is that our community *will* take flak and
possibly be harmed if there is an expectation set that picking fights in
this way over political opinions is accepted.  Because while I don't see
the current community taking action on the basis of political views, I do
see a problem more generally with how these fights get picked and would
prefer to see some softening of language to protect the community in that
case.  But again, I am probably being paranoid.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

The preceding's pretty simple. An attacker goes after an individual,
> presumably without provocation and/or asymetrically. The attacked
> person is on this mailing list. IMHO this attacker must choose between
> continuing his attacks, and belonging to the Postgres community.
>
> What's tougher is the person who attacks groups of people.
>
>
The preceding's pretty simple. An "attacker" voices their political opinions
or other unorthodoxy or unpopular stance, but in no way directs it at the
postgres user base or on a postgres list. The "attacked"
person is on this mailing list. IMHO this "attacker" must choose between
continuing to voice their opinion, and belonging to the Postgres community.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Steve Litt]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:19:59 -0700
"Joshua D. Drake"  wrote:


> I agree that within Postgresql.org we must have a professional code
> of conduct but the idea that an arbitrary committee appointed by an 
> unelected board can decide the fate of a community member based on 
> actions outside of the community is a bit authoritarian don't you
> think?
> 
> JD

You know the member inspected by the committee is free to start an
alternative Postgres community, if things get that bad. A LUG I once
founded started getting too abusive in their email, so I started a
second LUG, where people like me could communicate without what we
considered overt extraneous bullshit.

If this committee truly becomes authoritative, as perceived by a
significant portion of membership, the organization will fork.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Steve Litt]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:10:38 -0400
James Keener  wrote:

> > I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> >
> > it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> > moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> > people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and
> > Twitter.

The preceding's pretty simple. An attacker goes after an individual,
presumably without provocation and/or asymetrically. The attacked
person is on this mailing list. IMHO this attacker must choose between
continuing his attacks, and belonging to the Postgres community.

What's tougher is the person who attacks groups of people.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Steve Litt]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:18:12 +
Martin Mueller  wrote:

> I have followed this list for a couple of years, have benefited
> several times from quick and helpful advice,  and wonder whether all
> this code of conduct stuff is a solution in search of a problem. 

No, it's not. Talk to anyone outside the mainstream in a way that it
would be costly, in money or safety, for them to proclaim their
differences from the rooftops.

> My
> grandchildren were taught that “please and thank you sound so
> nice  manners are important, be polite” sung to the tune of Frère
> Jacques. They don’t always remember it,  but a longer poem wouldn’t
> help.

And indeed, if everybody were taught these things and lived by them,
including not saying bad stuff about groups of people, not making jokes
about groups of people, and calling people what they want to be called,
there would be no need at all.

But there are people who think that a Geek gathering is a really good
place to grope females. There are people who have no problem piling on
the unfortunate, perhaps because their misfortunes are God's punishment
for their sins (then why not be nice and leave the punishment to God?).
There are those who just love to cause trouble. There are really bad
people out there, and we need to define what's allowed and what's not
so these people can't cause damage, and that's why we have CoCs.

As far as behavior in other venues, I'm sure there are people out there
who would object to some of the stuff in some of my books. I've tried
my best to make my books unhurtful, but truth be told, if my books
(which don't name or resemble anyone on this list) run afoul of the
CoC, I'd have to resign from the list. I suggest treading very
carefully when discussing, in the Postgres CoC, peoples' behavior in
other venues.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Tom Lane]

Robert Haas  writes:
> It's not clear to me that there IS a general consensus here.  It looks
> to me like the unelected core team got together and decided to impose
> a vaguely-worded code of conduct on a vaguely-defined group of people
> covering not only their work on PostgreSQL but also their entire life.

There's been quite a lot of input, from quite a lot of people, dating
back at least as far as a well-attended session at PGCon 2016.  I find
it quite upsetting to hear accusations that core is imposing this out
of nowhere.  From my perspective, we're responding to a real need
voiced by other people, not so much by us.

> However, I also don't think it matters very much.

Yeah, this.  The PG community is mostly nice people, AFAICT.  I'll be
astonished (and worried) if the CoC committee finds much to do.  We're
implementing this mostly to make newcomers to the project feel that
it's a safe space.

It's also worth reminding people that this is v1.0 of the CoC document.
We plan to revisit it in a year or so, and thereafter as needed, to
improve anything that's causing problems or not working well.

regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On 09/14/2018 01:17 PM, Chris Travers wrote:

> And frankly I am probably being paranoid here though I find paranoia is a
> good thing when it comes to care of databases and computer systems.  But I
> do worry about the interactions between the PostgreSQL community and the
> larger world with things worded this way.

"The issue isn't whether you're paranoid, it's whether you're paranoid
enough"

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Martin Mueller]

On 9/14/18, 12:50 PM, "Joshua D. Drake"  wrote:

On 09/14/2018 07:41 AM, James Keener wrote:
> > Community is people who joined it
>
> We're not a "community."

I do not think you are going to get very many people on board with that 
argument. As anyone who knows me will attest I am one of the most 
contrarian members of this community but I still agree that it is a 
community.

JD


As Bill Clinton said in another context, "it all depends on the meaning of 
'community'".  'Community' is a very tricky word with uncertain boundaries and 
variable degrees of belonging to it.  Moreover, it's reciprocal: 'you' and the 
'community' may have different ideas of whether or how you belong. Rules in 
communities are usually tacit. You might almost want to say that if you need to 
write rules you no longer have a community.  Writing community rules is a very 
and probably hopeless endeavor.

For quite a while the word 'community' has been grossly overused and has often 
been invoked as a way of creating a sense of community where there is reason to 
doubt whether the thing is there in the first place. 

'Civil' and 'civility' are more modest words with more modest goals that are 
perhaps easier to capture in language. When it comes to a code of civil 
conduct, less is more. If you use more than the words of the ten commandments 
you almost certainly have gone too far. I have yet to see a posting on this 
list that would suggest an urgent need for trying to regulate what contributors 
say or how they say it.  





-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__the.postgres.company_&d=DwICaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=RJwS1VI8elhlnCutR_Pulg0oUzeSh5KpHQs0EJSdr04&s=3RBPPMk6HiBPEHYfzKDsP-DZxFvRs5NCYc9LKGXjpdE&e=
 || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__postgresconf.org&d=DwICaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=RJwS1VI8elhlnCutR_Pulg0oUzeSh5KpHQs0EJSdr04&s=ZiPaHw5gfja9OJeMGlTHieS-paSoyTHYC35rTgkwv_U&e=
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Peter Geoghegan]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Dimitri Maziuk  wrote:
> Personally I would like that. Others might prefer an invitation to
> unsubscribe or forever hold their peace, I could live with that too, but
> I believe explicit opt-ins are preferable to opt-outs.

I think that it's a legitimate position to be opposed to a CoC like
this. I also think it's legitimate to feel so strongly about it, on
philosophical or political grounds, that you are compelled to avoid
participating while subject to the CoC. FWIW, the latter position
seems rather extreme to me personally, but I still respect it.

In all sincerity, if you're compelled to walk away from participating
in mailing list discussions on a point of principle, then I wish you
well. That is your right.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Chris Travers]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:47 PM Peter Geoghegan  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk 
> wrote:
> > So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
> > people access to postgresql community support channel?
>
> Yes.
>
> > "Because
> > somebody who may or may not be the same person, allegedly said something
> > somewhere that some other tweet disagreed with on faceplant"?
> >
> > Great plan if you do for-pay postgresql support for the living.
>
> You can make your own conclusions about my motivations, just as I'll
> make my own conclusions about yours. I'm not going to engage with you
> on either, though.
>

With regard to the  concerns about authoritarianism, I have to defend the
Code of Conduct here.

It's not anything of the above.  The PostgreSQL project has a pretty good
track record of ensuring that people can participate across boundaries of
culture, ethnicity, political ideology (which is always informed by culture
and ethnicity), and the like.  On the whole I trust the committee to make
sound judgments.

The thing is, yes it is scary that someone might be effectively denied
access to commons based on false accusations, but it is also concerning
that people might be driven away from commons by aggressive harassment (on
or off list) or the like.  The code of conduct is a welcome step in that
goal.  I think we should trust long-standing communities with a track
record of being generally cultivating access to the commons with decisions
which foster that.   The fact is, at least I would hope we all agree that

This is basic governance.  Communities require arbitration and management
of the economic commons we build together and this is a part of that.  I am
pretty sure that's why the expansive wording was included.  And I support
the right of the committee to act even for off-list behavior when it is
appropriate to do so.  That part, I am not questioning.  I think that's
important.

So I think a lot of the hysteria misses the point.  We have good people.
We have a generally good track record of getting along.  We have a track
record of not being mean to eachother because of differences in political,
social, religious, etc. belief.  The committee as a custodian of this
community can't really take the hard sides on divisive issues that we might
expect in, say, an American corporation like Mozilla or Google.  I think
people who worry about this don't get the weight of responsibility that
will be placed on such individuals to support a breathtakingly diverse
international project and keep the peace, giving people room for civic
engagement even on divisive issues.

And frankly I am probably being paranoid here though I find paranoia is a
good thing when it comes to care of databases and computer systems.  But I
do worry about the interactions between the PostgreSQL community and the
larger world with things worded this way.



> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Robert Haas]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Dave Page  wrote:
> That wording has been in the published draft for 18 months, and noone
> objected to it that I'm aware of. There will always be people who don't like
> some of the wording, much as there are often people who disagree with the
> way a patch to the code is written. Sooner or later though, the general
> consensus prevails and we have to move on, otherwise nothing will ever get
> completed.

It's not clear to me that there IS a general consensus here.  It looks
to me like the unelected core team got together and decided to impose
a vaguely-worded code of conduct on a vaguely-defined group of people
covering not only their work on PostgreSQL but also their entire life.
It is not difficult to imagine that someone's private life might
include "behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into
disrepute."

However, I also don't think it matters very much.  The Code of Conduct
Committee is going to consist of small number of people -- at least
four, perhaps a few more.  But there are hundreds of people involved
on the PostgreSQL mailing lists, maybe thousands.  If the Code of
Conduct Committee, or the core team, believes that it can impose on a
very large group of people, all of whom are volunteers, some set of
rules with which they don't agree, it's probably going to find out
pretty quickly that it is mistaken.  If people from that large group
get banned for behavior which is perceived by other members of that
large group to be legitimate, then there will be a ferocious backlash.
Nobody wants to see people who are willing to contribute driven away
from the project, and anyone we drive away without a really good
reason will find some other project that welcomes their participation.
So the only thing that the Code of Conduct Committee is likely to be
able to do in practice is admonish people to be nicer (which is
probably a good thing) and punish really egregious conduct, especially
when committed by people who aren't involved enough that their absence
will be keenly felt.

In practice, therefore, democracy is going to win out.  That's both
good and bad.  It's good because nobody wants a CoC witch-hunt, and
it's bad because there's probably some behavior which legitimately
deserves censure and will escape it.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Stephen Frost]

Greetings,

* Dimitri Maziuk (dmaz...@bmrb.wisc.edu) wrote:
> On 09/14/2018 12:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk  
> > wrote:
> >> So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
> >> people access to postgresql community support channel?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> A question to TPTBs, then: once The Great Plan is implemented, will I be
> automagically unsubscribed from all postgres lists because I did not
> explicitly agree to abide by The Rules And Regulations back when I
> susbscribed?

The short answer is: probably.  We have been working for a while to
implement a mechanism to get people to explicitly opt-in for certain
things, like having all posts made public, due to GDPR requirements, and
I'm kinda hoping that this gets folded into it.

Thanks!

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On 09/14/2018 12:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk  
> wrote:
>> So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
>> people access to postgresql community support channel?
> 
> Yes.

A question to TPTBs, then: once The Great Plan is implemented, will I be
automagically unsubscribed from all postgres lists because I did not
explicitly agree to abide by The Rules And Regulations back when I
susbscribed?

Personally I would like that. Others might prefer an invitation to
unsubscribe or forever hold their peace, I could live with that too, but
I believe explicit opt-ins are preferable to opt-outs.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 09/14/2018 07:41 AM, James Keener wrote:

> Community is people who joined it

We're not a "community."


I do not think you are going to get very many people on board with that 
argument. As anyone who knows me will attest I am one of the most 
contrarian members of this community but I still agree that it is a 
community.


JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Peter Geoghegan]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk  wrote:
> So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
> people access to postgresql community support channel?

Yes.

> "Because
> somebody who may or may not be the same person, allegedly said something
> somewhere that some other tweet disagreed with on faceplant"?
>
> Great plan if you do for-pay postgresql support for the living.

You can make your own conclusions about my motivations, just as I'll
make my own conclusions about yours. I'm not going to engage with you
on either, though.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Lee Hachadoorian]

While agreeing that there are good arguments that we are a "community" in a
prescriptive sense, I don't think the discussion about whether we
constitute a community is relevant. For at least 25 years "community" has
been applied to virtually any group of people, much to the chagrin of those
such as community organizers and members of religious and intentional
communities who prefer to restrict its usage to a prescriptive sense.

Regarding treating conduct as a matter of "professionalism" rather than
"community", possibly all of the examples offered in the section
Inclusivity and Appropriate Conduct--thing such as personal attacks and
negative comments, threats of violence, and unwelcome sexual attention--do
strike me as unprofessional conduct, although these behaviors have
frequently been tolerated in *many* professional settings. (This is not
even close to being a uniquely tech problem. I could list the industries,
but it would basically be cutting and pasting the list of NAICS codes.)

The CoC will have largely the same meaning if "community" is replaced by
"users and developers" in most places. I do *not* suggest we do so, (a) the
word "community" as used in the document is at this point common usage, (b)
it will be uglier prose, and (c) there would sometimes need to be
additional verbose clarification as to whether it meant "individual users
and developers" or "users and developers as a collective body", and
sometimes it even appears to mean "the Spirit of PosgreSQL". (That last
might be an exaggeration.)

The question of when two or more "users or developers" interacting outside
our common purpose is worthy of the attention of the CoC committee--e.g.
direct email between members, two people at a bar after a conference--is a
legitimate concern, but I do not think a clear line can be decided
beforehand. Someone who received a direct, insulting or threatening email
from someone else on this particular thread that did *not* get distributed
to the list, and does *not* reference this conversation at all, could
reasonably initiate a CoC complaint even though the harassing behavior did
not make use of PG infrastructure. Two long-time PG developers who become
friends, and have been friends for many years in a way that goes far beyond
their PG activities, should not initiate a CoC complaint, or have their
complaint taken seriously by the committee, if they get into a screaming
fight at a family barbecue over one of them serving soda to the other's
kid. There's a lot of gray area in the middle that I think cannot be
resolved ahead of time, but gray areas don't preclude a good faith attempt
to cover some kinds of "outside" interactions.

I do agree, however, that the language "community at large" is somewhat
vague. The phrase is only used once, and is pretty much dropped in the next
sentence which reverts to discussing "interactions between community
members". I can't tell whether it could mean (from most to least
restrictive) (a) someone who is considering adopting PG (so not already a
user or developer) and asks a question online, in which case the phrase
"community at large" is merely meant to forestall an argument about whether
a non-user is a "community member", (b) someone PG-adjacent, such as a
vendor for a competing product at a conference, who is harassed by a PG
booster, or (c) literally everyone.

Best,
--Lee

-- 
Lee Hachadoorian
Assistant Professor of Instruction, Geography and Urban Studies
Assistant Director, Professional Science Master's in GIS
Temple University

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Geoff Winkless]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 15:55 James Keener,  wrote:

>
>
> Yes. They can. The people who make the majority of the contributions to
>> the software can decide what happens, because without them there is no
>> software. If you want to spend 20 years of your life
>>
>
> So everyone who moderates this group and that will be part of the CoC
> committee will have had to have dedicated their life of pg?
>

No. The core developers get to decide the policy and who is best to enforce
it. It seems fair that the people who have contributed so much get to
decide what goes on in their name.

>
> Sure, they own the servers, they make the rules. I get it. I'm not
> entirely opposed to it, even if I think it's silly to ram something down
> the rest of the groups throats.
>

I agree with you. I'm just fed up with rerunning the same argument every 3
months every time a new CoC update comes out.

PS: Also, what's with the personal replies? If you don't want to say what
> you want to the whole group, I don't really have an interest in talking to
> you personally.
>

Sorry what? I replied offlist to your offlist reply to my onlist post,
since I assumed you had decided (correctly) that this was hardly the sort
of discussion that we should be clogging up other people's mailboxes with.

Geoff

>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On 09/14/2018 12:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

> No CoC can possibly provide for every conceivable situation. Somebody
> has to interpret the rules, and it has to be possible to impose
> sanctions when the CoC is violated -- otherwise, what's the point?
> There are several checks and balances in place, and I for one have
> confidence in the process as outlined. It's imperfect, but quite a lot
> better than either the status quo, or a platitude about inclusivity.

So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
people access to postgresql community support channel?  "Because
somebody who may or may not be the same person, allegedly said something
somewhere that some other tweet disagreed with on faceplant"?

Great plan if you do for-pay postgresql support for the living.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Peter Geoghegan]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:
> Sure and that is unfortunate but isn't it up to the individual to deal with
> it through appropriate channels for whatever platform they are on? All of
> these platforms are:
>
> 1. Voluntary to use
> 2. Have their own Terms of Use and complaint departments
> 3. If it is abuse there are laws
>
> I agree that within Postgresql.org we must have a professional code of
> conduct but the idea that an arbitrary committee appointed by an unelected
> board can decide the fate of a community member based on actions outside of
> the community is a bit authoritarian don't you think?

The choice of the committee members is hardly arbitrary. Having
committee members be appointed by core is more or less consistent with
how the community has always dealt with disciplinary issues. The
criteria used by core were discussed quite openly. While the risk that
the committee will yield their power in an "authoritarian" way seems
very small, it cannot be ruled out entirely. In fact, it hasn't been
ruled out by the draft CoC itself.

No CoC can possibly provide for every conceivable situation. Somebody
has to interpret the rules, and it has to be possible to impose
sanctions when the CoC is violated -- otherwise, what's the point?
There are several checks and balances in place, and I for one have
confidence in the process as outlined. It's imperfect, but quite a lot
better than either the status quo, or a platitude about inclusivity.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Evan Macbeth]

I hesitate to exacerbate what is a society-wide debate that is being worked
out across organizations across the spectrum, but if I may provide a
thought for consideration.

The framing and language of the Code of Conduct, as written and proposed,
includes a large number of checkpoints to protect those accused of
violations of the code of conduct: Confidentiality, the Good Faith clause
that actually puts risk on those who report behavior under the code, a
scaling of consequences that is weighted *heavily* towards providing second
and third chances to those who may be accused of violating the code.

In the examples that have been raised in this discussion, it would seem to
me to be unreasonable for an investigation to result in a finding that the
code had been violated to the extent that any kind of public consequence
would be warranted. Indeed, were the examples cited to be adjudicated under
this code, I am confident we as a community would discover the code to be
working as designed, rather than the opposite.

If the objection is to the possibility of being reported at all for your
own behavior that you believe is not in violation, that's a different
matter. But if that is the concern, than the objection is not to *this*
code of conduct but to ANY code of conduct, because any code of conduct is
inherently going to introduce risk of being reported for everyone. And if
you believe strongly that a given statement you may have made is not
objectionable...you should be willing to defend it in an adjudication
investigation. If you are not willing to defend it in an adjudication
investigation, then you are tacitly (at least) acknowledging the statement
was not in keeping withe standards represented by the code.

This code of conduct as written, in my opinion, merely holds every member
of our community responsible for owning our words and behavior, and the
consequences thereof. I believe that we are adult enough to be willing to
take responsibility for ourselves.

Just my $0.02.

Evan Macbeth


On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:50 AM, James Keener  wrote:

> I find a lot of neo-con/trumpian political stances moronic, short-sighted,
> and anti-intellectual and therefore consider them offensive, an affront on
> my way of life, and a stain on my country.
>
> 1) Can I report anyone holding such views and discussing them on a 3rd
> party forum?
>
> 2) Could I be reported for saying the above on a 3rd party forum?
>
> Obviously the pg mailing list isn't a place for such discussion, but is
> being a member of this community a deal with the devil to give up my right
> to free speech elsewhere?
>
> Jim
>
>
> On September 14, 2018 6:10:47 AM EDT, Chris Travers <
> chris.trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ilya Kosmodemiansky 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers 
>>> wrote:
>>> > I really have to object to this addition:
>>> > "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
>>> > whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure,
>>> so long
>>> > as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as
>>> a
>>> > conference's Code of Conduct)."
>>> >
>>> > That covers things like public twitter messages over live political
>>> > controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if
>>> one is
>>> > going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for
>>> > non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and
>>> > politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  See, for
>>> example,
>>> > what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to encourage
>>> use of
>>> > this to silence political controversies unrelated to PostgreSQL.
>>>
>>> I think, this point has nothing to do with _correct_ discussions or
>>> public tweets.
>>>
>>> If one community member tweets publicly and in a way which abuses
>>> other community members, it is obvious CoC violation. It is hard to
>>> imagine healthy community if someone interacts with others  correctly
>>> on the list or at a conference because the CoC stops him doing things
>>> which he will do on private capacity to the same people when CoC
>>> doesnt apply.
>>>
>>> If someone reports CoC violation just because other community member's
>>> _correct_ public tweet or whatsoever  expressed different
>>> political/philosophical/religious views, this is a quite different
>>> story. I suppose CoC committee and/or Core team in this case should
>>> explain the reporter the purpose of CoC rather than automatically
>>> enforce it.
>>>
>>
>> So first, I think what the clause is trying to do is address cases where
>> harassment targeting a particular community member takes place outside the
>> infrastructure and frankly ensuring that the code of conduct applies in
>> these cases is important and something I agree with.
>>
>> However, let's look at problem cases:
>>
>> "I am enough of a Marxist to see gender as a qualitative

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On 09/14/2018 09:42 AM, Dave Page wrote:

> There are some fuzzy edges I guess (e.g. Slack), but in my mind it's always
> been anyone who participates in any of the projects communications channels.

Then you Sir are an evil ter'rist member of isis because your spoken
words are carried by the same air in the same atmosphere as theirs.
Please stand by while the black helicopters are being dispatched to your
current location, you will be shot in the face and dropped in the ocean
shortly.

Have a nice day
-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Stephen Frost]

Greetings,

* James Keener (j...@jimkeener.com) wrote:
> > > I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore
> > than
> > > I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the
> > first
> > > time.
> >
> > Does the bartender get to kick you out if you get into a fight?  Or if
> > you're rude or inappropriate towards the waitress?  Yup, doesn't matter
> > if it's the first time you were in the bar or not.
>
> You're perverting and twisting my argument. Don't do that.

I was trying to follow your analogy.  My apologies that it's not a great
one, I raised that same concern in the part of my email you omitted.

> My comment was that I'm not part of the "community" of the bar by simply
> walking into the bar; not that the bar has to serve me.
> 
> Please try to argue only what's being argued and not what you think you're
> reading into my comments.

The point I was making is that these lists are more like the bar and the
list manager like the bartender.  Yes, actions outside of the lists can
impact if someone's allowed to participate on these lists.  There's, of
course, a test of reasonableness and things like disagreements about
political views expressed outside of these lists aren't likely to make
the CoC feel that someone isn't appropriate for participation, even if a
complaint is made, but that doesn't mean that only actions on the list
are considered.

(note that I'm not part of the CoC, nor core, this is my expression of
how I feel things should be, as a member of this community)

Thanks!

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dave Page]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
wrote:

> On 09/14/2018 07:14 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>>
>> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
>>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
>>> the comments in this thread; see
>>>
>>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>>
>>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>>
>>
>> I really have to object to this addition:
>> "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
>> whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure, so
>> long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as
>> a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>>
>> That covers things like public twitter messages over live political
>> controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if one is
>> going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for
>> non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and
>> politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  See, for
>> example, what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to
>> encourage use of this to silence political controversies unrelated to
>> PostgreSQL.
>>
>>
>> I think this is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has
>> no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full
>> stop.
>>
>
> I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...
>
> I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other
> software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they
> become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices, then
> they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we should have
> every right to sanction them by preventing them participating in our
> project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate.
>
>
> We all know that PostgreSQL is the only database we should use and anybody
> using a different one just hasn't been enlightened yet. :P
>
> I think we need to define community member. I absolutely see your point of
> the individual is a contributor but community member is rather ethereal in
> this context don't you think?
>

There are some fuzzy edges I guess (e.g. Slack), but in my mind it's always
been anyone who participates in any of the projects communications channels.


-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[David G. Johnston]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Tom Lane  wrote:

> [ Let's try to trim this discussion to just -general, please ]
>
> Robert Eckhardt  writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
> >  wrote:
> >> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> >>> I really have to object to this addition:
>  "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community
> members,
>  whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org <
> http://postgresql.org>
>  infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that
> takes
>  precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
> >> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world,
> for
> >> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as
> 'community
> >> member' has no strict definition.
>
> > I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> > it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> > moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> > people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> Actually, that addition was in response to concerns that the previous
> version didn't delimit the intended scope of the document *at all*.
> So I would say it's more restricted now than the previous version.
>
> I feel that most of the concerns being raised today are straw men.
> If the PG lists were a place for political discussion, there'd be
> valid points to worry about as to whether a CoC might be used to
> stifle free speech.  But every example that's been given has been
> not merely off-topic but wildly so, so I don't find the discussion
> to be very realistic.
>

Are people who simply post on -general the occasional help going to be held
to the same standard (as impractical as that probably would be) as those
who are members of the committee or core?

Particularly for the those who are the "face" of the organization (and that
doesn't just mean core members or committers) the policy should not limit
itself to "interaction[s] between community members" and the sentence
should be, IMO, adjusted to loosen the "where" while tightening the "who".

Beyond that I don't object to writing out explicitly the option to consider
"external" activity - I doubt it will matter in practice and if the
situation is severe enough that it does then core could do what they want
anyway and deal with the fallout whether a CoC exists or whatever its
contents.  I do not believe that, for the typical community member with a
low profile, this will ever come into play.

David J.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dave Page]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:10 PM, James Keener  wrote:

> I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
>
>> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
>> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
>> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>>
>> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
>> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
>> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
>> vitriol.
>>
>
> You haven't established that this is both 1) the PG mailing list's problem
> and that 2) this can't and won't be used to retaliate against those holding
> unpopular viewpoints but aren't specifically harassing anyone.
>
> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
> appear
> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
> option.
>

If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as reports
and details of reports are to be kept confidential.


>
> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the mailing
> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the list.
> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>

The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
interact.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Ilya Kosmodemiansky]

> On 14. Sep 2018, at 16:31, Ilya Kosmodemiansky  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could only heavily +1 this. I can get

I can’t get of course, sorry for typo


> from where comes the idea that community is only what happens just on 
> postgresql.org or just on some other channel community uses.



> . 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dave Page
>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>> 
>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

> To many of us, we absolutely are a community. Remember, there are people
> here who have been around for 20+ years, of which many have become close
> friends, having started working on PostgreSQL as a hobby. We have always
> seen the project as a community of like-minded technologists, and welcome
> others that wish to join, whether just to ask a single question or to hang
> around for the next 20 years. I do see your viewpoint, but I would counter
> that coming here for help (for example) is quite different from calling
> tech support at a vendor.
>

I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore than
I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the first
time.

As I said, the rules can and should apply within the list, but applying
them outside the list is odd and wreaks of authoritarianism.

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Chris Travers]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:51 PM Dave Page  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2018 07:36 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:21 PM, James Keener  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
> appear
> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
> option.
>

 If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as
 reports and details of reports are to be kept confidential.

>>>
>>> That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that the
>>> attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
>>> about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence
>>> opposing viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but an attacker can do that now. Having the CoC doesn't change
>> anything there, though it does give us a framework to deal with it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>


>
> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the
> mailing
> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the
> list.
> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>

 The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
 interact.

>>>
>>> So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the time.
>>> Baring specific
>>> agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim
>>> responsibility of my
>>> personal business?
>>>
>>
>> If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or
>> harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then it
>> becomes our business.
>>
>> If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and not
>> something the project would get involved in.
>>
>>
>> O.k. so this isn't clear (at least to me) within the CoC. I want to make
>> sure I understand. You are saying that if a community member posts on
>> Twitter that they believe gays are going to hell, reporting that to the CoC
>> committee would result in a non-violation UNLESS they referenced postgresql
>> within the post?
>>
>
> Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established this Code
> of Conduct for community interaction and participation in the project’s
> work and the community at large." basically says?
>
> And in the end, a broad scope is required to some extent.

I want to be clear about where my concern and objection is:

1.  I think PostgreSQL, as an international project with people from many
different walks of life and different cultures needs to stay out of culture
war topics or assigning truth values to political viewpoints to the extent
absolutely possible.  We do this today and we must continue to do this.
2.  Compared to the rest of the world, people from my culture (the US) have
a tendency to take disagreements regarding political policies, social
theories, etc. personally and see abuse/attack where mere disagreement was
present.  People making complaints aren't necessarily acting in bad faith.
3.  If we don't set the expectation ahead of time that we remain
pluralistic in terms of political philosophy, culture, then it is way too
easy to end up in a situation where people are bringing up bad press for
failing to kick out people who disagree with them.

Like it or not there are precedents for this in the open source community,
such as the dismissal of Brendan Eich, and in an international project with
developers from all kinds of cultures with different views on deeply
divisive issues, such conflicts could hurt our community.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Stephen Frost]

Greetings,

(trimmed to -general, tho I don't know if it'll really help)

* James Keener (j...@jimkeener.com) wrote:
> > To many of us, we absolutely are a community. Remember, there are people
> > here who have been around for 20+ years, of which many have become close
> > friends, having started working on PostgreSQL as a hobby. We have always
> > seen the project as a community of like-minded technologists, and welcome
> > others that wish to join, whether just to ask a single question or to hang
> > around for the next 20 years. I do see your viewpoint, but I would counter
> > that coming here for help (for example) is quite different from calling
> > tech support at a vendor.
> 
> I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore than
> I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the first
> time.

Does the bartender get to kick you out if you get into a fight?  Or if
you're rude or inappropriate towards the waitress?  Yup, doesn't matter
if it's the first time you were in the bar or not.

> As I said, the rules can and should apply within the list, but applying
> them outside the list is odd and wreaks of authoritarianism.

This is more akin to an argument that the bartender can't ban you if you
got into a fight outside the bar- but it falls flat because, yeah,
they can.  Is the bartender likely to ban you because you made one rude
comment or said something on twitter that wasn't about their bar?
Probably not, but it doesn't mean it's not within their right to do so
if they found it particularly concerning (such as threats made against a
regular to the bar or such).

Ultimately, I do tend to agree with the other points made on this thread
that we end up throwing up a lot of 'straw men' attacks and that
analogies tend to not work out too well in the end, but that's part of
why we have a committee made up of reasonable people to consider a
particular complaint and address it, or not, as appropriate.

Thanks!

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Chris Travers]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:16 PM Tom Lane  wrote:

> [ Let's try to trim this discussion to just -general, please ]
>
> Robert Eckhardt  writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
> >  wrote:
> >> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> >>> I really have to object to this addition:
>  "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community
> members,
>  whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org <
> http://postgresql.org>
>  infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that
> takes
>  precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
> >> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world,
> for
> >> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as
> 'community
> >> member' has no strict definition.
>
> > I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> > it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> > moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> > people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> Actually, that addition was in response to concerns that the previous
> version didn't delimit the intended scope of the document *at all*.
> So I would say it's more restricted now than the previous version.
>
> I feel that most of the concerns being raised today are straw men.
> If the PG lists were a place for political discussion, there'd be
> valid points to worry about as to whether a CoC might be used to
> stifle free speech.  But every example that's been given has been
> not merely off-topic but wildly so, so I don't find the discussion
> to be very realistic.
>

If the code of conduct limited conduct that related to postgresql.org
infrastructure, I would agree.  This one explicitly includes all kinds of
interactions which are beyond that.

I assume "all interaction between members" could include having a few beers
at a pub, or being in an argument over the scope of human rights on
facebook, and I think there are people who will read it that way.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Chris Travers]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:14 PM Dave Page  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>>
>> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
>>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
>>> the comments in this thread; see
>>>
>>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>>
>>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>>
>>
>> I really have to object to this addition:
>> "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
>> whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure, so
>> long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as
>> a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>>
>> That covers things like public twitter messages over live political
>> controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if one is
>> going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for
>> non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and
>> politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  See, for
>> example, what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to
>> encourage use of this to silence political controversies unrelated to
>> PostgreSQL.
>>
>>
>> I think this is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has
>> no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full
>> stop.
>>
>
> I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...
>
> I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other
> software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they
> become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices, then
> they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we should have
> every right to sanction them by preventing them participating in our
> project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate.
>

 Actually, the easier case here is not being abusive to MySQL users, as the
code of conduct really doesn't clearly cover that anyway.  The easier case
is where two people have a feud and one person carries on a harassment
campaign over various forms of social media.  The current problem is:

1.  The current code of conduct is not clear as to whether terms of
service/community standards of, say, Reddit, supersede or not, and
2.  The community has to act (even if it is includes behavior at a
conference which has its own code of conduct)

So I think the addition is both over inclusive and under inclusive.   It is
over inclusive because it invites a certain group of (mostly American)
people to pick fights (not saying this is all Americans).  And it is under
inclusive because there are cases where the code of conduct *should* be
employed when behavior includes behavior at events which might have their
own codes of conduct.

On the other side, consider someone carrying on a low-grade harassment
campaign against another community member at a series of conferences where
each conference may not amount to a real actionable concern but where the
pattern as a whole might.  There's the under inclusive bit.

So I don't like this clause because I think it invites problems and doesn't
solve issues.
-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Fwd: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

I didn't realize they had replied personally to me.

-- Forwarded message --
From: James Keener 
Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct plan
To: Dave Page 


If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or
> harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then it
> becomes our business.
>
> If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and not
> something the project would get involved in.
>
>
And yet, none of that is made clear or establish or even hinted at in the
current CoC. Also, may I refer you to https://github.com/opal/opal/
issues/941 as a scenario in which an outside conversation can leak in and
become the business of the group?

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

>
> And if you believe strongly that a given statement you may have made is
> not objectionable...you should be willing to defend it in an adjudication
> investigation.


So because someone doesn't like what I say in a venue 100% separate from
postgres,  I have to subject myself, and waste my time, defending actions
in this (and potentially other groups who would also adopt overly broad
CoC) group.

One of the biggest drivers of plea-bargains for innocent people in the US
justice system is the expense of having to defend yourself. I find that to
be a travesty; why are we duplicating that at a smaller level?

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dave Page]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:57 PM, James Keener  wrote:

>
>
>> Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established
>> this Code of Conduct for community interaction and participation in the
>> project’s work and the community at large." basically says?
>>
>
> No? What's the "community at large"? To me that sounds like "all
> interactions" whether or not they're about postgres.
>

That wording has been in the published draft for 18 months, and noone
objected to it that I'm aware of. There will always be people who don't
like some of the wording, much as there are often people who disagree with
the way a patch to the code is written. Sooner or later though, the general
consensus prevails and we have to move on, otherwise nothing will ever get
completed.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 09/14/2018 07:51 AM, Dave Page wrote:
If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or 
harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then 
it becomes our business.






If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business
and not something the project would get involved in.


O.k. so this isn't clear (at least to me) within the CoC. I want
to make sure I understand. You are saying that if a community
member posts on Twitter that they believe gays are going to hell,
reporting that to the CoC committee would result in a
non-violation UNLESS they referenced postgresql within the post?


Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established 
this Code of Conduct for community interaction and participation in 
the project’s work and the community at large." basically says?


Honestly, no. At least not to me especially when you consider the 
sentence right after that, "This Code is meant to cover all interaction 
between community members, whether or not it takes place within 
postgresql.org infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of 
Conduct that takes precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."


Based on your clarification, I am feeling better but the language 
doesn't read that way to me.


I wish this was easier but have we considered that all channels that we 
would be concerned with already have CoC's and therefore our CoC is 
fairly powerless? Sure they call them Terms of Use but that's what they 
are, Code of Conducts.


Thanks,

JD

--

Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

> > I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore
> than
> > I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the
> first
> > time.
>
> Does the bartender get to kick you out if you get into a fight?  Or if
> you're rude or inappropriate towards the waitress?  Yup, doesn't matter
> if it's the first time you were in the bar or not.
>
>
You're perverting and twisting my argument. Don't do that.

My comment was that I'm not part of the "community" of the bar by simply
walking into the bar; not that the bar has to serve me.

Please try to argue only what's being argued and not what you think you're
reading into my comments.

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dave Page]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:55 PM, James Keener  wrote:

>
>
> Yes. They can. The people who make the majority of the contributions to
>> the software can decide what happens, because without them there is no
>> software. If you want to spend 20 years of your life
>>
>
> So everyone who moderates this group and that will be part of the CoC
> committee will have had to have dedicated their life of pg?
>
> Sure, they own the servers, they make the rules. I get it. I'm not
> entirely opposed to it, even if I think it's silly to ram something down
> the rest of the groups throats.
>
> Jim
>
> PS: Also, what's with the personal replies? If you don't want to say what
> you want to the whole group, I don't really have an interest in talking to
> you personally.
>

I've had one off-list personal reply in this thread... from you :-p

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[David Wall]

On 9/14/18 7:52 AM, James Keener wrote:


I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore 
than I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for 
the first time.


As I said, the rules can and should apply within the list, but 
applying them outside the list is odd and wreaks of authoritarianism.


Jim
In the 20 years I've been using PG, I've not noted any bizarre "list 
speech" except this discussion that suggests others should monitor 
people's behavior wherever they are, and report any "infraction" to PG, 
so PG can boot them.  I'm with those who think that idea is 
diametrically opposed to open source's freedom.  What next, monitor what 
apps people are using their DB for and decide if the "community" 
approves of its character or not?


David

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

>
> Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established this Code
> of Conduct for community interaction and participation in the project’s
> work and the community at large." basically says?
>

No? What's the "community at large"? To me that sounds like "all
interactions" whether or not they're about postgres.

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

Yes. They can. The people who make the majority of the contributions to the
> software can decide what happens, because without them there is no
> software. If you want to spend 20 years of your life
>

So everyone who moderates this group and that will be part of the CoC
committee will have had to have dedicated their life of pg?

Sure, they own the servers, they make the rules. I get it. I'm not entirely
opposed to it, even if I think it's silly to ram something down the rest of
the groups throats.

Jim

PS: Also, what's with the personal replies? If you don't want to say what
you want to the whole group, I don't really have an interest in talking to
you personally.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dave Page]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
wrote:

> On 09/14/2018 07:36 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:21 PM, James Keener  wrote:
>
>>
>> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
 counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
 appear
 along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
 stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
 the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
 option.

>>>
>>> If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as
>>> reports and details of reports are to be kept confidential.
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that the
>> attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
>> about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence
>> opposing viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.
>>
>
> Sure, but an attacker can do that now. Having the CoC doesn't change
> anything there, though it does give us a framework to deal with it.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>

 People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
 some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the
 mailing
 list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the
 list.
 How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.

>>>
>>> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
>>> interact.
>>>
>>
>> So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the time.
>> Baring specific
>> agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim responsibility
>> of my
>> personal business?
>>
>
> If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or
> harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then it
> becomes our business.
>
> If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and not
> something the project would get involved in.
>
>
> O.k. so this isn't clear (at least to me) within the CoC. I want to make
> sure I understand. You are saying that if a community member posts on
> Twitter that they believe gays are going to hell, reporting that to the CoC
> committee would result in a non-violation UNLESS they referenced postgresql
> within the post?
>

Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established this Code
of Conduct for community interaction and participation in the project’s
work and the community at large." basically says?

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dave Page]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:41 PM, James Keener  wrote:

> > Community is people who joined it
>
> We're not a "community." We're people using email to get help with or
> discuss technical aspects of PostgreSQL. The types of discussions that
> would normally be held within a "community" would be entirely off-topic
> here.  We should be professional to each other here; we don't need to be
> buddies. There is a clear difference between "professionalism" and
> "community". A document governing interactions on this list is within the
> right of the moderation, but leaking into the "real world" is an
> abomination and perversion of what this group is.
>

To many of us, we absolutely are a community. Remember, there are people
here who have been around for 20+ years, of which many have become close
friends, having started working on PostgreSQL as a hobby. We have always
seen the project as a community of like-minded technologists, and welcome
others that wish to join, whether just to ask a single question or to hang
around for the next 20 years. I do see your viewpoint, but I would counter
that coming here for help (for example) is quite different from calling
tech support at a vendor.


>
> My church group is 100% within their right to kick me out of teaching
> Sunday School if I were to have an affair. Teaching Sunday School is an act
> taking place as part of a community of people with a shared belief and
> culture. My job would 100% not be within their right to fire me for having
> an affair, as it's not a community, but a professional environment and my
> personal life is just that: personal. (Baring an ethics clauses signed when
> joining, I guess?)
>

> Jim
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Ilya Kosmodemiansky 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 14. Sep 2018, at 16:17, Dave Page  wrote:
>>
>>
>> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
>> interact.
>>
>>
>> I could only heavily +1 this. I can get from where comes the idea that
>> community is only what happens just on postgresql.org or just on some
>> other channel community uses. Community is people who joined it and CoC
>> supposed to apply even if people use analogue telephones. This is about
>> communication, not about communication channels.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Page
>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>
>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Tom Lane]

[ Let's try to trim this discussion to just -general, please ]

Robert Eckhardt  writes:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
>  wrote:
>> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>> I really have to object to this addition:
 "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
 whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org 
 infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes
 precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."

>> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
>> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 'community
>> member' has no strict definition.

> I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.

Actually, that addition was in response to concerns that the previous
version didn't delimit the intended scope of the document *at all*.
So I would say it's more restricted now than the previous version.

I feel that most of the concerns being raised today are straw men.
If the PG lists were a place for political discussion, there'd be
valid points to worry about as to whether a CoC might be used to
stifle free speech.  But every example that's been given has been
not merely off-topic but wildly so, so I don't find the discussion
to be very realistic.

regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 09/14/2018 07:36 AM, Dave Page wrote:



On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:21 PM, James Keener > wrote:



Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the
committee, but I would
counter that it's still a stain on me and something that
will forever appear
along side my name in search results and that the amount
of time and
stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my
voluntarily leaving
the community, which would be seen as an admission of
guilt, my only
option.


If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't
happen as reports and details of reports are to be kept
confidential.


That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that
the attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence
opposing viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.


Sure, but an attacker can do that now. Having the CoC doesn't change 
anything there, though it does give us a framework to deal with it.



People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not
agreeing to join
some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing
up for the mailing
list.  The current moderators can already remove bad
actors from the list.
How they act outside of the list is non of this list's
concern.


The lists are just one of many different ways people in this
community interact.


So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the
time. Baring specific
agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim
responsibility of my
personal business?


If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or 
harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then 
it becomes our business.


If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and 
not something the project would get involved in.


O.k. so this isn't clear (at least to me) within the CoC. I want to make 
sure I understand. You are saying that if a community member posts on 
Twitter that they believe gays are going to hell, reporting that to the 
CoC committee would result in a non-violation UNLESS they referenced 
postgresql within the post?


JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

> Community is people who joined it

We're not a "community." We're people using email to get help with or
discuss technical aspects of PostgreSQL. The types of discussions that
would normally be held within a "community" would be entirely off-topic
here.  We should be professional to each other here; we don't need to be
buddies. There is a clear difference between "professionalism" and
"community". A document governing interactions on this list is within the
right of the moderation, but leaking into the "real world" is an
abomination and perversion of what this group is.

My church group is 100% within their right to kick me out of teaching
Sunday School if I were to have an affair. Teaching Sunday School is an act
taking place as part of a community of people with a shared belief and
culture. My job would 100% not be within their right to fire me for having
an affair, as it's not a community, but a professional environment and my
personal life is just that: personal. (Baring an ethics clauses signed when
joining, I guess?)

Jim


On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Ilya Kosmodemiansky 
wrote:

>
>
> On 14. Sep 2018, at 16:17, Dave Page  wrote:
>
>
> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
> interact.
>
>
> I could only heavily +1 this. I can get from where comes the idea that
> community is only what happens just on postgresql.org or just on some
> other channel community uses. Community is people who joined it and CoC
> supposed to apply even if people use analogue telephones. This is about
> communication, not about communication channels.
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dave Page]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Adrian Klaver 
wrote:

> On 9/14/18 7:19 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> No one is tracking anything as part of the CoC. That's nothing but a
>> straw man argument.
>>
>
> Not buying it or the below is null and void:
>
> "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
> whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure, so
> long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as
> a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
> Not sure how the above can be enforced without someone reporting on what
> is said outside the 'postgresql.org infrastructure'?
>
> At any rate, whether I like it or not the CoC is here to stay. I just feel
> a dissenting opinion is important to the conversation.


I can report someone who steal my wallet to the police. That doesn't mean I
track pick-pockets activity.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 09/14/2018 07:14 AM, Dave Page wrote:



On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake > wrote:


On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:


I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all
been moving.
The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft
CoC based on
the comments in this thread; see

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct


(That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on
the page
history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)


I really have to object to this addition:
"This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community
members, whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org
 infrastructure, so long as there is not
another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a
conference's Code of Conduct)."

That covers things like public twitter messages over live
political controversies which might not be personally directed.  
At least if one is going to go that route, one ought to *also*
include a safe harbor for non-personally-directed discussions of
philosophy, social issues, and politics. Otherwise, I think this
is asking for trouble.  See, for example, what happened with
Opalgate and how this could be seen to encourage use of this to
silence political controversies unrelated to PostgreSQL.


I think this is a complicated issue. On the one hand,
postgresql.org  has no business telling
people how to act outside of postgresql.org
. Full stop.


I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...

I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other 
software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they 
become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices, 
then they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we 
should have every right to sanction them by preventing them 
participating in our project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate.


We all know that PostgreSQL is the only database we should use and 
anybody using a different one just hasn't been enlightened yet. :P


I think we need to define community member. I absolutely see your point 
of the individual is a contributor but community member is rather 
ethereal in this context don't you think?


JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dave Page]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:21 PM, James Keener  wrote:

>
> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
>>> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
>>> appear
>>> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
>>> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
>>> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
>>> option.
>>>
>>
>> If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as
>> reports and details of reports are to be kept confidential.
>>
>
> That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that the
> attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
> about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence opposing
> viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.
>

Sure, but an attacker can do that now. Having the CoC doesn't change
anything there, though it does give us a framework to deal with it.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
>>> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the
>>> mailing
>>> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the
>>> list.
>>> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>>>
>>
>> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
>> interact.
>>
>
> So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the time.
> Baring specific
> agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim responsibility
> of my
> personal business?
>

If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or
harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then it
becomes our business.

If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and not
something the project would get involved in.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Ilya Kosmodemiansky]

> On 14. Sep 2018, at 16:17, Dave Page  wrote:
> 
> 
> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community 
> interact.

I could only heavily +1 this. I can get from where comes the idea that 
community is only what happens just on postgresql.org or just on some other 
channel community uses. Community is people who joined it and CoC supposed to 
apply even if people use analogue telephones. This is about communication, not 
about communication channels. 


> 
> -- 
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
> 
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Stephen Frost]

Greetings,

* Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote:
> I think this is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has no
> business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full stop.

This is exactly what this CoC points out- yes, PG.Org absolutely can and
should consider the behavior of individuals as a whole, regardless of
where, when it comes to deciding if it's appropriate for that individual
to continue to be a member of this community.  The CoC isn't about
everyone in the world, nor is it trying to address the actions of
individuals who are not members of this community, but it's definitely
about more than just actions seen on these mailing lists.

> On the other hand if you are (note: contributor, not community member which
> is different) contributor to PostgreSQL, your actions speak about
> PostgreSQL. So I am not sure what a good plan of action here would be.

The line being drawn here isn't terribly clear and I don't know that
it's really useful to try and draw a line.  There's a limit to what PGDG
is able to do from a technical perspective, but anything which is able
to be done within PGDG should be done to distance the community and
project, to the fullest extent possible, from inappropriate behavior.
That could be someone causing problems on IRC or on the mailing lists or
somewhere else, even if that individual isn't listed as a contributor or
involved in the project in other ways.  Naturally, there are different
levels and that's why there's a CoC committee to consider what's fair
and reasonable and at least part of that will probably take into
consideration an individual's role in the community.

> There was a time when Open Source was about code and community. It is clear
> that it is becoming about authority and politics.

This isn't actually anything new, to be clear, this is simply a
definition and documentation to provide clarity and a seperate committee
which Core is delegating out responsibility to.

Thanks,

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Adrian Klaver]

On 9/14/18 7:19 AM, Dave Page wrote:







No one is tracking anything as part of the CoC. That's nothing but a 
straw man argument.


Not buying it or the below is null and void:

"This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members, 
whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure, so 
long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such 
as a conference's Code of Conduct)."


Not sure how the above can be enforced without someone reporting on what 
is said outside the 'postgresql.org infrastructure'?


At any rate, whether I like it or not the CoC is here to stay. I just 
feel a dissenting opinion is important to the conversation.




--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
>> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
>> appear
>> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
>> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
>> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
>> option.
>>
>
> If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as reports
> and details of reports are to be kept confidential.
>

That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that the
attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence opposing
viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.


>
>
>>
>> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
>> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the
>> mailing
>> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the list.
>> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>>
>
> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
> interact.
>

So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the time. Baring
specific
agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim responsibility
of my
personal business?

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 09/14/2018 06:59 AM, Robert Eckhardt wrote:



I really have to object to this addition:
"This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org 
infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes
precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."


I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 'community
member' has no strict definition.

I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.


Yes but are we to be the School Principal for the world?


these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
vitriol.


Sure and that is unfortunate but isn't it up to the individual to deal 
with it through appropriate channels for whatever platform they are on? 
All of these platforms are:


1. Voluntary to use
2. Have their own Terms of Use and complaint departments
3. If it is abuse there are laws

I agree that within Postgresql.org we must have a professional code of 
conduct but the idea that an arbitrary committee appointed by an 
unelected board can decide the fate of a community member based on 
actions outside of the community is a bit authoritarian don't you think?


JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dave Page]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Adrian Klaver 
wrote:

> On 9/14/18 6:59 AM, Robert Eckhardt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>>
>>
>
 I really have to object to this addition:
 "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
 whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org <
 http://postgresql.org>
 infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that
 takes
 precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."

>>>
>>>
>>> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
>>> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as
>>> 'community
>>> member' has no strict definition.
>>>
>>
>> I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
>> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
>> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
>> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>>
>> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
>> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
>> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
>> vitriol.
>>
>
> Ask yourself, if this was a government agency tracking your speech across
> platforms would you be as approving? Personally I find the whole thing
> creepy.


No one is tracking anything as part of the CoC. That's nothing but a straw
man argument.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Geoff Winkless]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 15:10, James Keener  wrote:

> I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
>
>> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
>> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
>> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>>
>> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
>> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
>> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
>> vitriol.
>>
>
> You haven't established that this is both 1) the PG mailing list's problem
> and that 2) this can't and won't be used to retaliate against those holding
> unpopular viewpoints but aren't specifically harassing anyone.
>

This argument (whether or not PostgreSQL should have a CoC) was hashed out
pretty heavily a year ago. In my opinion it wasn't really clear that any
one side or another won the argument but the people who matter came down on
the side of having one. It's pretty unlikely that re-running these
arguments is going to make those people change their minds.

Certainly posting obscenities to these open forums isn't going to do it,
however strongly you might feel about it.

Geoff

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Dave Page]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
wrote:

> On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>
> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
>> the comments in this thread; see
>>
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>
>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>
>
> I really have to object to this addition:
> "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
> whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure, so
> long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as
> a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
> That covers things like public twitter messages over live political
> controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if one is
> going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for
> non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and
> politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  See, for
> example, what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to
> encourage use of this to silence political controversies unrelated to
> PostgreSQL.
>
>
> I think this is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has
> no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full
> stop.
>

I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...

I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other software
and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they become abusive
or offensive to people making other software choices, then they are clearly
bringing the project into disrepute and we should have every right to
sanction them by preventing them participating in our project in whatever
ways are deemed appropriate.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Stephen Frost]

Greetings,

* Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@aklaver.com) wrote:
> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tom Lane  >> wrote:
> >
> >I wrote:
> > > Stephen Frost mailto:sfr...@snowman.net>>
> >writes:
> > >> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update
> >on when
> > >> this will be moving forward?
> > >> Or did I miss something?
> >
> > > Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard
> >to keep
> > > forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting
> >the initial
> > > committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
> > > wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.
> >
> >I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been
> >moving.
> >The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
> >the comments in this thread; see
> >
> >https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
> >
> >(That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
> >history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
> >
> >I really have to object to this addition:
> >"This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
> >whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org
> > infrastructure, so long as there is not another
> >Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a conference's Code of
> >Conduct)."

I was wondering about that myself and rather had an objection to
implying that this CoC doesn't apply when there's a CoC set up for some
event.  The CoC for an event is typically going to be thinking about
things from the event's timeline (which is on the order of days),
whereas something which happened at an event reflects on the community
and should also be addressed at that level.

> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 'community
> member' has no strict definition.

The goal of this CoC isn't to cure the world, it's to define what's
acceptable behavior to continue to be a member of this community, to
participate in this community through the mailing lists, IRC, etc, and
to be seen as a representative of the community/project.

We certainly have both the right and the remit to define who we want to
have in our community and to represent this community and project to
other communities, projects, organizations, and to people in general.
This CoC is about making it clear what's acceptable and what isn't and
making it clear to everyone, including other communities, that we take
conduct seriously and have a mechanism for dealing with issues that's
fair and reasonable.

Thanks!

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Adrian Klaver]

On 9/14/18 6:59 AM, Robert Eckhardt wrote:

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
 wrote:

On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:




I really have to object to this addition:
"This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org 
infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes
precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."



I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 'community
member' has no strict definition.


I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.

these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
vitriol.


Ask yourself, if this was a government agency tracking your speech 
across platforms would you be as approving? Personally I find the whole 
thing creepy.




My $0.02
-- Rob Eckhardt




Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com






--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen

> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
> vitriol.
>

You haven't established that this is both 1) the PG mailing list's problem
and that 2) this can't and won't be used to retaliate against those holding
unpopular viewpoints but aren't specifically harassing anyone.

Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever appear
along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
option.

People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the mailing
list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the list.
How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.

Conferences are free to hold their own CoC because you explicitly agree to
it when you purchase a ticket, and it's governing interactions at the
conference
(or should only be governing actions at the conference.)

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:


I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been
moving.
The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC
based on
the comments in this thread; see

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

(That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)


I really have to object to this addition:
"This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community 
members, whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org 
 infrastructure, so long as there is not 
another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a conference's 
Code of Conduct)."


That covers things like public twitter messages over live political 
controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if 
one is going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe 
harbor for non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social 
issues, and politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  
See, for example, what happened with Opalgate and how this could be 
seen to encourage use of this to silence political controversies 
unrelated to PostgreSQL.


I think this is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has 
no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full stop.


On the other hand if you are (note: contributor, not community member 
which is different) contributor to PostgreSQL, your actions speak about 
PostgreSQL. So I am not sure what a good plan of action here would be.


One area where this is going to cause a lot of issues is within the 
social constructs of the micro-communities. Are we going to ban Chinese 
members because their government is anti Christian and anti Muslim? Are 
we going to ban members of countries that are not as progressive 
thinking about LGBT rights? Are we going to tell evangelical Christians 
or devout Muslims that they are unwelcome because they are against Gay 
marriage? Are we going to ban Atheists because they think Christians are 
fools?


I think the answer would be, "no" unless they post an opinion... Is that 
really what our community is becoming, thought police?


There was a time when Open Source was about code and community. It is 
clear that it is becoming about authority and politics.


I am the individual that initiated this whole process many moons ago 
with the intent that we have a simple, "be excellent to each other" code 
of conduct. What we have now (although much better than previous drafts) 
is still an over reach.


tl;dr; The willingness of people to think they are right is only 
exceeded by their willingness to oppress those they don't agree with.



JD
--

Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Robert Eckhardt]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
 wrote:
> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tom Lane > > wrote:
>>
>> I wrote:
>>  > Stephen Frost mailto:sfr...@snowman.net>>
>> writes:
>>  >> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update
>> on when
>>  >> this will be moving forward?
>>  >> Or did I miss something?
>>
>>  > Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard
>> to keep
>>  > forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting
>> the initial
>>  > committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
>>  > wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.
>>
>> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been
>> moving.
>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based
>> on
>> the comments in this thread; see
>>
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>
>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>
>>
>> I really have to object to this addition:
>> "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
>> whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org 
>> infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes
>> precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
>
> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 'community
> member' has no strict definition.

I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.

these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
vitriol.

My $0.02
-- Rob Eckhardt

>
>
>>
>> That covers things like public twitter messages over live political
>> controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if one is
>> going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for
>> non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and
>> politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  See, for example,
>> what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to encourage use of
>> this to silence political controversies unrelated to PostgreSQL.
>>
>>
>> I think we are about ready to announce the initial membership of the
>> CoC committee, as well, but that should be a separate post.
>>
>>  regards, tom lane
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Wishes,
>> Chris Travers
>>
>> Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
>> lock-in.
>> http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Adrian Klaver]

On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:



On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tom Lane > wrote:


I wrote:
 > Stephen Frost mailto:sfr...@snowman.net>>
writes:
 >> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update
on when
 >> this will be moving forward?
 >> Or did I miss something?

 > Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard
to keep
 > forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting
the initial
 > committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
 > wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.

I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been
moving.
The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
the comments in this thread; see

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

(That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)


I really have to object to this addition:
"This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members, 
whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org 
 infrastructure, so long as there is not another 
Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a conference's Code of 
Conduct)."


I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, 
for whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 
'community member' has no strict definition.




That covers things like public twitter messages over live political 
controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if one 
is going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for 
non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and 
politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  See, for 
example, what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to 
encourage use of this to silence political controversies unrelated to 
PostgreSQL.



I think we are about ready to announce the initial membership of the
CoC committee, as well, but that should be a separate post.

                         regards, tom lane



--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor 
lock-in.

http://www.efficito.com/learn_more



--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Martin Mueller]

I have followed this list for a couple of years, have benefited several times 
from quick and helpful advice,  and wonder whether all this code of conduct 
stuff is a solution in search of a problem. Or, if there is a problem now and 
then, whether an elaborate code does a better job than reminding offenders that 
they’ve crossed a line marked by common decency or common courtesy. I think a 
list manager should have the right to expel repeat offenders. I doubt whether 
‘proceduralizing’ offences against common decency or common courtesy makes it 
easier to police what is always a tricky boundary.

It is possible to spend a lot of time and energy designing bureaucratic 
solution that in the end does little good.  My grandchildren were taught that 
“please and thank you sound so nice  manners are important, be polite” sung 
to the tune of Frère Jacques. They don’t always remember it,  but a longer poem 
wouldn’t help.


From: James Keener 
Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 at 7:52 AM
To: "pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org" , 
Chris Travers , "i...@dataegret.com" 

Cc: Tom Lane , Stephen Frost , 
"pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org" , 
"pgsql-hack...@lists.postgresql.org" , 
"pgsql-advoc...@lists.postgresql.org" 
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct plan

I find a lot of neo-con/trumpian political stances moronic, short-sighted, and 
anti-intellectual and therefore consider them offensive, an affront on my way 
of life, and a stain on my country.

1) Can I report anyone holding such views and discussing them on a 3rd party 
forum?

2) Could I be reported for saying the above on a 3rd party forum?

Obviously the pg mailing list isn't a place for such discussion, but is being a 
member of this community a deal with the devil to give up my right to free 
speech elsewhere?

Jim
On September 14, 2018 6:10:47 AM EDT, Chris Travers  
wrote:

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ilya Kosmodemiansky 
mailto:i...@dataegret.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers 
mailto:chris.trav...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I really have to object to this addition:
> "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
> whether or not it takes place within 
> postgresql.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__postgresql.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=BYjxekkm1qd5vvRFXRtzSk35tzn2FgzBWbZZf_O53G4&s=2J5h4ShLpyZtHe5CYuBvsEKDxkSxUtzXxffWGDSpOB8&e=>
>  infrastructure, so long
> as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a
> conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
> That covers things like public twitter messages over live political
> controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if one is
> going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for
> non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and
> politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  See, for example,
> what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to encourage use of
> this to silence political controversies unrelated to PostgreSQL.

I think, this point has nothing to do with _correct_ discussions or
public tweets.

If one community member tweets publicly and in a way which abuses
other community members, it is obvious CoC violation. It is hard to
imagine healthy community if someone interacts with others  correctly
on the list or at a conference because the CoC stops him doing things
which he will do on private capacity to the same people when CoC
doesnt apply.

If someone reports CoC violation just because other community member's
_correct_ public tweet or whatsoever  expressed different
political/philosophical/religious views, this is a quite different
story. I suppose CoC committee and/or Core team in this case should
explain the reporter the purpose of CoC rather than automatically
enforce it.

So first, I think what the clause is trying to do is address cases where 
harassment targeting a particular community member takes place outside the 
infrastructure and frankly ensuring that the code of conduct applies in these 
cases is important and something I agree with.

However, let's look at problem cases:

"I am enough of a Marxist to see gender as a qualitative relationship to 
biological reproduction and maybe economic production too."

I can totally imagine someone arguing that such a tweet might be abusive, and 
certainly not "correct."

Or consider:

"The effort to push GLBT rights on family-business economies is nothing more 
than an effort at corporate neocolonialism."

Which would make the problem more clear.  Whether or not a comment like that 
occurring outside 
postgresql.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__postgresql.org&d=DwMFaQ

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

I find a lot of neo-con/trumpian political stances moronic, short-sighted, and 
anti-intellectual and therefore consider them offensive, an affront on my way 
of life, and a stain on my country.

1) Can I report anyone holding such views and discussing them on a 3rd party 
forum? 

2) Could I be reported for saying the above on a 3rd party forum? 

Obviously the pg mailing list isn't a place for such discussion, but is being a 
member of this community a deal with the devil to give up my right to free 
speech elsewhere?

Jim

On September 14, 2018 6:10:47 AM EDT, Chris Travers  
wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ilya Kosmodemiansky 
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers
>
>> wrote:
>> > I really have to object to this addition:
>> > "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community
>members,
>> > whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure,
>so
>> long
>> > as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such
>as a
>> > conference's Code of Conduct)."
>> >
>> > That covers things like public twitter messages over live political
>> > controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if
>one
>> is
>> > going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor
>for
>> > non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues,
>and
>> > politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  See, for
>> example,
>> > what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to encourage
>use
>> of
>> > this to silence political controversies unrelated to PostgreSQL.
>>
>> I think, this point has nothing to do with _correct_ discussions or
>> public tweets.
>>
>> If one community member tweets publicly and in a way which abuses
>> other community members, it is obvious CoC violation. It is hard to
>> imagine healthy community if someone interacts with others  correctly
>> on the list or at a conference because the CoC stops him doing things
>> which he will do on private capacity to the same people when CoC
>> doesnt apply.
>>
>> If someone reports CoC violation just because other community
>member's
>> _correct_ public tweet or whatsoever  expressed different
>> political/philosophical/religious views, this is a quite different
>> story. I suppose CoC committee and/or Core team in this case should
>> explain the reporter the purpose of CoC rather than automatically
>> enforce it.
>>
>
>So first, I think what the clause is trying to do is address cases
>where
>harassment targeting a particular community member takes place outside
>the
>infrastructure and frankly ensuring that the code of conduct applies in
>these cases is important and something I agree with.
>
>However, let's look at problem cases:
>
>"I am enough of a Marxist to see gender as a qualitative relationship
>to
>biological reproduction and maybe economic production too."
>
>I can totally imagine someone arguing that such a tweet might be
>abusive,
>and certainly not "correct."
>
>Or consider:
>
>"The effort to push GLBT rights on family-business economies is nothing
>more than an effort at corporate neocolonialism."
>
>Which would make the problem more clear.  Whether or not a comment like
>that occurring outside postgresql.org infrastructure would be
>considered
>"correct" or "abusive" is ultimately a political decision and something
>which, once that fight is picked, has no reasonable solution in an
>international and cross-cultural product (where issues like sexuality,
>economics, and how gender and individualism intersect will vary
>dramatically across members around the world).  There are people who
>will
>assume that both of the above statements are personally offensive and
>attacks on the basis of gender identity even if they are critiques of
>political agendas severable from that.  Worse, the sense of attack
>themselves could be seen as attacks on culture or religions of other
>participants.
>
>Now neither of these comments would be tolerated as viewpoints
>expressed on
>PostgreSQL.org email lists because they are off-topic, but once one
>expands
>the code of conduct in this way they become fair game.  Given the way
>culture war issues are shaping up particularly in the US, I think one
>has
>to be very careful not to set an expectation that this applies to
>literally
>everything that anyone does anywhere.
>
>So maybe something more like:
>
>"Conduct that occurs outside the postgresql.org infrastructure is not
>automatically excluded from enforcement of this code of conduct.  In
>particular if other parties are unable to act, and if it is, on
>balance, in
>the interest of the global community to apply the code of conduct, then
>the
>code of conduct shall apply."
>
>>
>> > --
>> > Best Wishes,
>> > Chris Travers
>> >
>> > Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No
>vendor
>> > lock-in.
>> > http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Best Wishes,
>Chris Travers
>
>Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Rob

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Damir Colak]

Please take me off this list.


> On Sep 14, 2018, at 05:31, Chris Travers  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tom Lane  > wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Stephen Frost mailto:sfr...@snowman.net>> writes:
> >> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update on when
> >> this will be moving forward?
> >> Or did I miss something?
> 
> > Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard to keep
> > forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting the initial
> > committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
> > wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.
> 
> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
> the comments in this thread; see
> 
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct 
> 
> 
> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
> 
> I really have to object to this addition:
> "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members, 
> whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org  
> infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes 
> precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
> 
> That covers things like public twitter messages over live political 
> controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if one is 
> going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for 
> non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and 
> politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  See, for example, 
> what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to encourage use of 
> this to silence political controversies unrelated to PostgreSQL.
> 
> I think we are about ready to announce the initial membership of the
> CoC committee, as well, but that should be a separate post.
> 
> regards, tom lane
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
> 
> Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor 
> lock-in.
> http://www.efficito.com/learn_more 

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Ilya Kosmodemiansky]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers  wrote:
> I really have to object to this addition:
> "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
> whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure, so long
> as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a
> conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
> That covers things like public twitter messages over live political
> controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if one is
> going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for
> non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and
> politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  See, for example,
> what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to encourage use of
> this to silence political controversies unrelated to PostgreSQL.

I think, this point has nothing to do with _correct_ discussions or
public tweets.

If one community member tweets publicly and in a way which abuses
other community members, it is obvious CoC violation. It is hard to
imagine healthy community if someone interacts with others  correctly
on the list or at a conference because the CoC stops him doing things
which he will do on private capacity to the same people when CoC
doesnt apply.

If someone reports CoC violation just because other community member's
_correct_ public tweet or whatsoever  expressed different
political/philosophical/religious views, this is a quite different
story. I suppose CoC committee and/or Core team in this case should
explain the reporter the purpose of CoC rather than automatically
enforce it.

> --
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
> Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
> lock-in.
> http://www.efficito.com/learn_more