Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Gavin Flower]

On 24/01/16 13:48, Regina Obe wrote:

This is mostly in response to David's recent comments.  I should say David,
you are really beginning to make me feel unsafe.
By unsafe I mean my mental safety of being able to speak truthfully without
fear of being kicked out of a community I love.

I do not think we need a Coc and if we do, it's only to protect me from
people like this Kurtis guy:

https://twitter.com/siloraptor/status/690637345972981760

So if we have a Coc, I want all people who are on Core and Coc committee  to
be exempt from it.  Because if I can't trust them I can't trust anybody in
the PostgreSQL group.

So here are some comments to your comments David:



3. If I understand correctly, the impetus for adopting a CoC (which,

believe me, I laud in no uncertain terms) was this post by Randi Harper
about her experience reporting abuse to the FreeBSD community:

   >
http://blog.randi.io/2015/12/31/the-developer-formerly-known-as-freebsdgirl/


Ideally, by adopting a CoC and an enforcement policy, we can try to

prevent bad experiences for people reporting abuse. However, in this
example, the abuse, which came from a

FreeBSD committer and was aimed at another, took place on Twitter, not in

a FreeBSD forum. However, the rules of the FreeBSD community at that time
did not cover abuse outside

sanctioned community forums. As a result, the FreeBSd core:

I brought that up by the way and is what broke my camel's back about simply
ignoring this nonsense and going about my business doing PostGIS and tech
writing.
I personally went and talked to all the people that supposedly harassed
Randi and guess what?
They happened to be very nice people, that seemed emotionally traumatized by
her unjust assaults and her hiding behind (I'M A WOMAN YOU CAN'T TOUCH ME -
trump card).
  In search of the truth, I found new friends.

I don't want to even go into detail about the torture in community and
outside she put this poor guy thru what she put him thru I would expect her
to pay a million dollars in law-suits.

https://twitter.com/siloraptor/status/689969604102328320

As for her, she blocked me because I said after studying the evidence I
found her accusations baseless.



Look, I'm not an authority on this stuff, either. But I understand that

rules, such as those in a Code of Conduct, must be explicit and as
unambiguous as language will allow.

Those who claim to be authorities are the most narrow-minded, self-absorbed,
culturally sheltered people I have ever met.  They can only think of
unambiguity in their own minds.

Chis Travers has demonstrated, that though he's white, he's been exposed to
so many cultures that he has a sense of how each feels. His experiences make
him an authority.
George Winkless has faced abuse and bullying.  He knows what it is when he
sees it.  Forget he's white.  His experiences make him an authority.
Josh Drake has to put up with 2 women every day being the only guy in his
immediate family.  Ironically he probably has a better perspective on the
"How women feel?" story than I do.

Now as for me true I'm a mixed race (Half-black, Half-white, woman, and I'm
a dual citizen - Half-Nigerian/ Half American and married to a Chinese man).
I should be the master authority, but guess what, I don't consider myself
one.

If I'm in an all black group I'm asked -- "You're part white, what do you
think white people think about this?" - I say, if you have a group of white
people, they'll all disagree with each other

If I'm in an all white group I'm asked -- "You're black what do black people
think?" - Well Nigerians think very differently than non-Nigerians, and I'm
not usually in an all black group that is not my extended Nigerian family.

If I'm in my husband's family meeting -- "Hmm Regina likes this food, I
wonder if that means all non-Chinese will like this" - curiously enough they
all pass me there - Red-bean porridge dessert, and I remain puzzled why
Chinese hand out desserts that their people don't seem to care for.

if I'm in an all-male group, I'm asked, "You're a woman, do you feel FOSS is
a rape culture.  Has someone tried to rape you in conferences? Do you feel
unsafe"   And I'll

a) Point them to Josh Drake, cause he's had more experience dealing with
women than I have
b) Also point out that I've lived under the shadow of my older brothers,
following them around, had boy hand-me down toys, had a mother who was
"Daddy's favorite girl".
So essentially I'm a Tom-boy that feels extremely uncomfortable in all
female groups.  They look like me, but they are foreign creatures to me.  I
feel I understand the "male" psyche better if there is such a thing.

Finally I've suffered a lot of bullying in youth (and I mean real unsafe
kind like running from the bus when being chased by a gang of Italian boys
in an all-italian neighborhoo ready to lynch you kind of bullying) and I bet
most geeks have, so we are all very experienced on the subject and I would
hope wouldn't wish it on anyone else.  We 

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Tom Lane]

Chris Travers  writes:
> Core has spoken that they will create one.  I them that it will maintain
> the general political neutrality of the community (and again for the
> record, I don't see the topless dancer conference issue as one that
> compromised that political neutrality either).  So as far as I am
> concerned, the question of do we need one is resolved.

Just to correct the record: core has stated that we will set up an
exploratory committee to investigate this topic.  (I hope to have some
news soon on progress on that, but not just yet.)  There's a fair number
of people who feel we don't need a CoC, and so I don't think we should
prejudge the outcome of the discussion.

In the meantime, it's been made pretty clear that a lot of people didn't
like pgsql-general being overwhelmed by threads on this topic, which it
was for awhile there in January.  Possibly the answer is to create a new
list dedicated to the topic, so that people who aren't interested don't
need to read it.  Again, I'd rather not prejudge how the exploratory
committee will handle this exactly, but I'm sure they will choose some
way of discussing the matter with the larger community.  For now, let's
try not to annoy the pgsql-general readership ...

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Chris Travers]

I was hoping to let this thread lie.  However because I think there is a
need for people to sit back and wait for the draft to be circulated, there
are a couple more thoughts that are important to add.   I am working on one
more blog post on the topic but will not further participate in this
discussion until the draft is circulated.

There are, however, a few remarks to be made that I hope will help lessen
some of the tension within the community over this issue.

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Gavin Flower  wrote:

> On 24/01/16 13:48, Regina Obe wrote:
>
>> This is mostly in response to David's recent comments.  I should say
>> David,
>> you are really beginning to make me feel unsafe.
>> By unsafe I mean my mental safety of being able to speak truthfully
>> without
>> fear of being kicked out of a community I love.
>>
>> I do not think we need a Coc and if we do, it's only to protect me from
>> people like this Kurtis guy:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/siloraptor/status/690637345972981760
>
>
Just for the record, I think core is in a position to determine whether one
would be helpful and I am not.  LedgerSMB has really been made better by
adopting the Ubuntu Code of Conduct (thanks, Josh Drake!), so I am not
opposed to having a code of conduct.  What I am opposed to is adopting a
code of conduct which positions the community as  culture war
battleground.  I think the Contributor's Covenant is more or less intended
to do exactly that.

Core has spoken that they will create one.  I them that it will maintain
the general political neutrality of the community (and again for the
record, I don't see the topless dancer conference issue as one that
compromised that political neutrality either).  So as far as I am
concerned, the question of do we need one is resolved.

>
>>
>> So if we have a Coc, I want all people who are on Core and Coc committee
>> to
>> be exempt from it.  Because if I can't trust them I can't trust anybody in
>> the PostgreSQL group.
>>
>> So here are some comments to your comments David:
>>
>>
>> 3. If I understand correctly, the impetus for adopting a CoC (which,
>>>
>> believe me, I laud in no uncertain terms) was this post by Randi Harper
>> about her experience reporting abuse to the FreeBSD community:
>>
>>>
>>
>> http://blog.randi.io/2015/12/31/the-developer-formerly-known-as-freebsdgirl/
>>
>> Ideally, by adopting a CoC and an enforcement policy, we can try to
>>>
>> prevent bad experiences for people reporting abuse. However, in this
>> example, the abuse, which came from a
>>
>>> FreeBSD committer and was aimed at another, took place on Twitter, not in
>>>
>> a FreeBSD forum. However, the rules of the FreeBSD community at that time
>> did not cover abuse outside
>>
>>> sanctioned community forums. As a result, the FreeBSd core:
>>>
>> I brought that up by the way and is what broke my camel's back about
>> simply
>> ignoring this nonsense and going about my business doing PostGIS and tech
>> writing.
>> I personally went and talked to all the people that supposedly harassed
>> Randi and guess what?
>> They happened to be very nice people, that seemed emotionally traumatized
>> by
>> her unjust assaults and her hiding behind (I'M A WOMAN YOU CAN'T TOUCH ME
>> -
>> trump card).
>>   In search of the truth, I found new friends.
>>
>
As a maintainer of other open source software I have a different view.
Having now read the blog and some other things, I think it is worth saying
a few things.  This isn't about what a CoC should or should not cover.  My
comments, as before, are intended to highlight the realities that come with
trying to manage a community.  I trust the core team to come up with a code
of conduct that doesn't make merely expressing a political position
elsewhere a possible violation.  This has been floated as a need from the
beginning and I don't see that going away.

Let's get two things clear from the start:

1.  Online harassment is real and damaging, and
2.  Any outside authority is in a low-knowledge position regarding what to
do about it.

In other words, the software maintainer is not in a position to adjudicate
a dispute, particularly when the remedy demanded is to exile a committer.
Conduct on lists, IRC channels, etc. where there are witnesses, they are
community space, etc. are one thing  But going to conduct elsewhere not
only feels like overreach but making mistakes is also more costly and there
is less we really can do.

Add to that the price of possibly implicitly making political viewpoints
off-limits for people who are involved in the economic commons creation
process and you have a real potential for problems.

So I won't judge either side in the Randi Harper incident (I don't have
personal knowledge or the time to read through everything).  But I will say
that writing to maintainers demanding that someone is kicked off a project
for communications outside the project space is not something any sane
project maintainer 

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Chris Travers]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Geoff Winkless 
wrote:

> On 24 January 2016 at 00:15, Steve Litt  wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 +
> > Geoff Winkless  wrote:
> >> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
> >> to the same level of protection.
> >
> > The preceding two sentences form a distinction that will need some
> > elaboration.
>
> I'm not quite sure how. Maybe English isn't your first language?
>
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/entitle
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/need
>
> > Come on, the preceding is contrived to the point of being silly. You
> > know exactly what I mean.
>
> No, it absolutely isn't. Your point is "here is a group of people who
> have no right to an opinion because XYZ". My point is that by
> generalising to the group you are ignoring the individuals within it.
>


With due respect to everyone in this conversation, the emphasis should not
be in protecting people.  It should be in protecting the project as a
common endeavor.  Protecting individuals from certain kinds of behavior is
necessary in accomplishing that.  But it isn't the primary goal and should
not be.

I also think it is important to set that expectation early on.  That this
is about the needs of the community.

I am concerned that there is a drive to jump on a particular cultural
bandwagon here which may *appear* to be inclusive but is in fact very
exclusionary and would push the project into a very distinctly political
direction internationally.


> Geoff
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>



-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

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

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Rajeev Bhatta]

Sorry for top posting... 

I like what you said at the end Shouldn't the simple rule of thumb be that 
the discussion on the mailing list should be project related and all personal 
references should be avoided instead of finding the balancing equation..  
Someone mentioned earlier that signatures could be offensive, but signatures 
are personal and I am not sure if they should be part of the conduct as that is 
not a statement made to an individual. 

Thanks 
Rajeev 


On Jan 24, 2016 06:19, Steve Litt  wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:43:11 -0800 
> "Joshua D. Drake"  wrote: 
>
>
> > I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that 
> > generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse? 
> > The individual started the conversation and I am also classified as 
> > obese (barely, I won't be in a month). 
>
> Perfect! 
>
> I know a person who is fat because his/her (I'll call the person male 
> from now on) thyroid was removed, and weight control is extremely 
> difficult under those circumstances. Do you think he'd feel welcome on 
> a list where somebody said "generally speaking, obesity is a matter of 
> diet and exercise?"[1] And then perhaps someone else says he thinks fat 
> people are lazy. 
>
> Is my overweight friend going to set you straight? Probably not. He 
> knows how much antifat prejudice exists in the employment marketplace, 
> and doesn't want to do anything do the slightest thing to "out" himself 
> to potential networking associates who haven't seen him in person. 
>
> And for what? What does a person's weight have to do with a great 
> and powerful Open Source relational database? Not a dam thing. 
>
> Hey, if the conflict is about technology, by all means have at it. It's 
> an argument that needs to happen in order to produce the best result. 
> But when it comes to gender, gender preference, gender-assignment, 
> race, nationality, religion, body shape, or political party (unless the 
> party takes a stand on technology), the CoC should ban negative 
> statements about that crap. 
>
> [1] I'm not faulting your example. Your example is relevant to the 
> discussion. I'm faulting a hypothetical person who comes on the list 
> and says that, apropos to nothing. 
>
> SteveT 
>
> Steve Litt 
> January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting 
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/28 
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) 
> To make changes to your subscription: 
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general 

-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 24 January 2016 at 00:06, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:
>
>> I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that 
>> generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse? The 
>> individual started the conversation and I am also classified as obese 
>> (barely, I won't be in a month).
>>
>> I have been accused of being sexist because I asked if there was chalk (for 
>> bouldering) that was better for women because their skin is generally softer 
>> and the chalk wasn't staying on the respective persons hand. A scientific 
>> sexist fact.
>>
>> I have been accused of being sexist because I said it wasn't sexist that 
>> Samsung doesn't make full feature/performance phones that are smaller for a 
>> woman's hands.
>
> So are you able to recognize the ways in which those statements can come 
> across as prejudiced?

No. None of the statements Josh describes exhibits any prejudice.

It absolutely isn't prejudiced to make factual statements. It may be
that the facts are uncomfortable, but it's not prejudiced to reiterate
them.

It _would_ be prejudiced to make an assumption about a specific female
climber based on the scientific fact that most women have softer skin.
It _would_ be prejudiced to make an assumption that a fat person is
lazy and eats too much.

It's a factual statement that the proportion of African Americans in
prison is proportionally high. It would prejudiced to a) assume that
because of this an African American you meet is a criminal, b) suggest
that the reason African Americans are in prison is because they're
inherently more likely to commit criminal acts.

Are we a bit clearer about what constitutes prejudice now?

> We *all* make mistakes. Ideally what one does is to try to recognize them
> and take responsibility for them. An *abuser* will do neither.

There you go with these pejorative terms again. Someone who disagrees
with your lifestyle and makes generalised statements about that
lifestyle which offend you is not abusing you, and yet as far as I can
see that is what the Covenant has been used to combat (and it appears
designed specifically so to do).

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 24 January 2016 at 00:15, Steve Litt  wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 +
> Geoff Winkless  wrote:
>> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
>> to the same level of protection.
>
> The preceding two sentences form a distinction that will need some
> elaboration.

I'm not quite sure how. Maybe English isn't your first language?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/entitle
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/need

> Come on, the preceding is contrived to the point of being silly. You
> know exactly what I mean.

No, it absolutely isn't. Your point is "here is a group of people who
have no right to an opinion because XYZ". My point is that by
generalising to the group you are ignoring the individuals within it.

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Alban Hertroys]

> On 24 Jan 2016, at 1:48, Regina Obe  wrote:
> So the point is stop assuming who has experience and who doesn't simply by
> how people look.

+1

To expand on that: Don't let your prejudices get the better of you. Assuming 
that other people are prejudiced about you is just another prejudice.

The people you're communicating with on a mailing list are individuals, not 
groups, so do not generalise. In most cases you do not know enough about them 
to make such assumptions, and that's assuming they are valid, which they 
generally are not (yikes! a generalisation!).

> The irony is that PostgreSQL is so diverse that a Coc leads to nothing but
> huge arguments about what's okay in one culture and not another. We can only
> go by intent and not what was done.  If we can't say that, then a Coc does
> us no good.  I've already violated all Cocs at least 3 times in this whole
> conversation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Regina

What about this for a CoC?:
1. Do not discuss a CoC.

But, this side-thread has been going on long enough I think. Let's wrap this 
up, shall we?

Regards,

Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll find there is no forest.



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

Dear All,

There has been much development based on many good comments and broader 
participation on this thread that I have seen in the past which no doubt is the 
envy of many other companies and open source communities.  

However we seem to have moved away from the core goal of this thread which 
should result in better development of postgresql's community. As a result a 
number of questions have not been  answered.

So can we please wrap up the CoC points as it stands? No doubt there will be 
future revisions.



Kind Regards




Farjad Farid




-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:43:11PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> The tl;dr; here is:
> 
> If a "human" is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k..
> If a human is not being respected in this community, it is not o.k..

/me likes.

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Chris Travers]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:25 AM, David E. Wheeler 
wrote:

> Fellow PostgreSQLers,
>
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this
> document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to
> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I
> missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the
> target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the
> level of many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of
> personally, in this community and others, who have. If those people are not
> speaking up here, I suspect it’s because they don’t expect to be heard. A
> bunch of white guys who run the project have decided what it’s gonna be,
> and mostly cut things out since these threads started.
>

I am married to someone from a very different culture and have now lived
and worked in three very different cultures and continents.  One problem I
have seen is that once one starts making these distinction "white guys"
then the rhetorical framework is complex enough it turns to benefit the
same powers it is supposed to restrict.


> But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the
> people who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered
> what sorts of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed,
> and how to word them so as to enable the most people possible to feel safe,
> and to appropriately address issues when they inevitably arise, so that
> people continue to feel safe.
>
> So I’d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I
> propose that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have already
> put into this, and simply:
>
> * Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono,
> Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor Covenant,
> unmodified.
>
>   http://contributor-covenant.org
>
> Does the phrase "solution in search of a problem" come to mind?


> * Put this document in the root directory of the project as
> CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It should
> also be listed on the main web site and referenced from appropriate places
> (such as the mail lists pages).
>
> * Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a
> separate document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The reporting
> address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links
> to a number of existing guides we ought to crib from.
>

The problem isn't as I understand it an enforcement problem.  It is the
fact that in a genuinely diverse group of people, there are going to be
major differences in perspective and it is very easy to find something to
be offended at.  If the goal is a frankly Western-exclusive view of
diversity which includes some perspectives but is hostile to other
perspectives then it is entirely self-defeating.

As I have mentioned before people in many countries may (legitimately!) see
folks pushing GLBT rights as an effort to corrode the traditional
multi-generation family structures which both care for the elderly and
provide business continuity in a family business (i.e. self-employment,
small business, unincorporated, nonindustrial) economy.  And therefore we
white guys can then justify our racist paternalism using our perception of
their homophobia (without even trying to understand where they are coming
from!) My point here isn't on the wisdom of policies but on the nature
of discourse and the point that the quest to appear diverse to some
interests requires squashing diversity in other dimensions (particularly
where ideology and culture come together).

Because I see things from multiple cultural perspectives let me give a
hypothetical that I think shows how these things conflict.  I might be
getting quoted sources slightly wrong.  My point here is to highlight
differences in perspective and how people may find this exclusionary.

Suppose someone in the community (we will call this Person A) adds an email
signature which says:

"Marriage is an institution for the benefit of the spouses, not for the
purposes of binding parents to their children." -- Ted Olsen arguing for
same-sex marraige.

Suppose person B takes offense, and changes the email signature to read:

"
*If mutual consent makes a sexual act moral, whether within marriage or
without, and, by parity of reasoning, even between members of the same sex,
the whole basis of sexual morality is gone and nothing but misery and
defect awaits the youth of the country..." -- Mohandas Gandhi*

Person A appeals to the core community saying that person B's signature is
hostile to gays and lesbians (and it is).  Person B responds that person
A's signature is deeply culturally insensitive and undermines any hope of
cultural diversity on the list (and it does).  Person A points out that
they consider India a horrible abuser of gay rights, and person 

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 23 January 2016 at 18:07, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:
>> A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.
>
> Says someone who requires no protection at all.

I must object to the repeated assertions that certain people in this
community require no protection, or have no reason to, as a way of
discounting their arguments.

In addition you might appreciate the irony if you took the time to
consider the (reasonably recent) history of people with names like his
before stating that Josh requires no protection. Everyone is entitled
to the same level of protection, whatever their race, gender
alignment, sexuality or whatever, and that includes us white
middle-class men, however guilty you appear to feel the need to be
about being one.

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/23/2016 10:07 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:


You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the reason.


You say, that, and yet someone will. Think about law: if laws contradict each 
other, a person accused of violating one law will use the other in their 
defense.


A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.


Says someone who requires no protection at all.


David,

I appreciate that this topic is close to your heart and that you are 
very passionate about it. I would counsel you to try and be objective 
and work toward a solution that people will be willing to support. That 
support will require compromise.


Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake




--
Command Prompt, Inc.  http://the.postgres.company/
 +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:

> You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the reason.

You say, that, and yet someone will. Think about law: if laws contradict each 
other, a person accused of violating one law will use the other in their 
defense.

> A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.

Says someone who requires no protection at all.

Best,

David




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 23:31, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner  wrote:
>
>> I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
>> what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
>> present.
>
> Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Ruby communities. Shitstorms 
> are not unusual when people ask for a CoC.

No, shitstorms are not unusual when people aggressively and
unreasonably shout and scream like spoilt children to get their own
way. Thus far there has mostly been reasonable argument on both sides.

> My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ 
> language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic 
> if not an outright violation.
> But one can argue by another point (“tolerant of people’s right to have 
> opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds.

I and many others have already invalidated this point and yet without
answering them you continue to push it as truth. You're currently
hovering extremely close to the "destructive troll" box, to be honest.

> What if they psychologically abused someone in person, perhaps another member 
> of the community,
> but in a non-community context? Should there be no repercussions?

Here? No. Postgres is not in the business of enforcing the law, or
indeed of enforcing one person's idea of acceptable behaviour.

> In my above example, the victim of the abuse would not feel safe in our 
> community, because their
> abuser would still be a member in good standing. Even if they reported that 
> behavior, the would have
> no expectation of anything being done to address it. In this example, the 
> abuser ends up protected by
> the CoC while the victim is not.

Not true. The victim has the same level of protection as the abuser
within the community context.

Outside the community context Postgres has little or no impact. We
(when I say "we" I mean the community) could bar someone from the
community and it would have no impact on the hypothetical situation
you describe. Further, we do not have the resource to investigate to a
legal satisfaction any evidence that may or may not exist, so we would
(if we arbitrarily made decisions about a community member based on
another member's say-so) lay ourselves open to legal challenge if the
actions we took did actually impact on that member's ability to earn a
living.

> This is a very real thing that happens to real people in communities every 
> day. IME, we want people to feel safe reporting incidents even if they occur 
> outside the community, and that such reports will be taken seriously, with an 
> explicit policy for doing so.

Please don't put "we want" when it's been made explicitly clear that a
significant number of "we" do not, unless you meant "IMO" rather than
"IME"

> Limiting the policy to community forums is insufficient for making people 
> feel safe.
> This is the whole reason for v1.3.0 of the Contributor Covenant:

It was made clear very early on in the discussion that that is the
reason why it will not be adopted.

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Melvin Davidson]

I been pretty quiet about this whole discussion, but now I have to ask the
following questions.

This is an INTERNET SUPPORT FORUM.
Just how in the hell is it possible for anyone to have their actual sex
detected unless they voluntarily provide it?
Further to the point, how is it possible to harass sexually (or physically)
molest anyone in this forum unless they provide information
and agree to meet in person.

Please, drop the argument about protecting against physical or verbal
abuse, because it does not apply to this forum.


On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Steve Litt 
wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:12:15 +
> Geoff Winkless  wrote:
>
> > On 23 January 2016 at 18:07, David E. Wheeler 
> > wrote:
> > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
> > > wrote:
> > >> A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.
> > >
> > > Says someone who requires no protection at all.
> >
> > I must object to the repeated assertions that certain people in this
> > community require no protection, or have no reason to, as a way of
> > discounting their arguments.
> >
> > In addition you might appreciate the irony if you took the time to
> > consider the (reasonably recent) history of people with names like his
> > before stating that Josh requires no protection. Everyone is entitled
> > to the same level of protection, whatever their race, gender
> > alignment, sexuality or whatever, and that includes us white
> > middle-class men, however guilty you appear to feel the need to be
> > about being one.
>
> I'm reminded of a person on a computer on a no-Internet-connection LAN
> saying that everyone needs equal protection from firewalls. Ummm, no.
> The Internet connected firewall has many, many more attempts made
> against it than the guy on the island LAN.
>
> We all need protection --- this is true. But the transsexual has much
> more bad verbiage aimed at "his (her) kind" than a run of the mill,
> average person, whatever that may be.
>
> When you go to computer conferences, how often does someone put their
> hands all over you? Read this:
>
> http://blog.valerieaurora.org/2010/11/08/its-not-just-noirin/
>
> If you think the author of the preceding article is lying, google the
> combination of "groped" and "Linux conference". Women are the minority
> at these conferences, yet many more hands reach out and grab them.
>
> We all need the necessary protection, which is not necessarily equal
> protection, because some of us are subjected to much more harassment.
> And I think we all need to walk a mile in other peoples shoes before
> assuming others need only the meager amount of protection we need.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/28
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>



-- 
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize.  Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 23 January 2016 at 23:39, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> I get that my short, snarky posts don’t help my argument, but I admit to 
> being a bit frustrated that the posts wherein I have tried to lay out a 
> position get little or no response. So let me try again.

They get a response; however it's not the response you want, so you
seem to ignore it.

> 1. Items in the current draft of the CoC can be manipulated by abusers to 
> claim that they were just expressing an opinion or were ignorant of their 
> tone.

No, they can't. I've explained elsewhere how this is not the case, you
haven't responded.

> 2. This document has been written and edited, in the main, by people who have 
> not, to my knowledge, experienced the kind of abuse we want to prevent.
[snip]
> I think we should bring in the expertise to help us craft a document that’s 
> likely to be the most effective.

Feel free to bring them in, but be aware of the absolute limits of
what the postgres community is prepared to be responsible for.

> As a result, the FreeBSd core weren’t willing to take action on threats 
> because they didn’t happen on the mailing list — despite them happening in a 
> venue where the committer publicly identified himself as a member of the 
> project.
>
> The proposed CoC does not cover this situation, either, at least not as 
> directly as it should.

No. It shouldn't. That's the point that everyone is trying to make to
you and the point that you are stubbornly refusing to accept.

> This isn’t about compromise, mind. If what we want to do is to let people 
> know that they are safe from abuse in this community and from members of this 
> community, that we take abuse seriously and will act on reports 
> expeditiously, then I don’t see how the proposed CoC get us there.

It doesn't help that you appear to be hearing and not listening.

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 23, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Steve Litt  wrote:

> We all need the necessary protection, which is not necessarily equal
> protection, because some of us are subjected to much more harassment.
> And I think we all need to walk a mile in other peoples shoes before
> assuming others need only the meager amount of protection we need.

Thank you, Steve, well said.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 23, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:

> I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that 
> generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse? The 
> individual started the conversation and I am also classified as obese 
> (barely, I won't be in a month).
> 
> I have been accused of being sexist because I asked if there was chalk (for 
> bouldering) that was better for women because their skin is generally softer 
> and the chalk wasn't staying on the respective persons hand. A scientific 
> sexist fact.
> 
> I have been accused of being sexist because I said it wasn't sexist that 
> Samsung doesn't make full feature/performance phones that are smaller for a 
> woman's hands.

So are you able to recognize the ways in which those statements can come across 
as prejudiced? We *all* make mistakes. Ideally what one does is to try to 
recognize them and take responsibility for them. An *abuser* will do neither.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 23 January 2016 at 21:59, Steve Litt  wrote:
> I'm reminded of a person on a computer on a no-Internet-connection LAN
> saying that everyone needs equal protection from firewalls. Ummm, no.
> The Internet connected firewall has many, many more attempts made
> against it than the guy on the island LAN.

Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
to the same level of protection. I'm also making the point that your
Island guy might have a mobile phone that's linked to his computer
that you don't know about and you're assuming that cos he's on an
island he has no right to have an opinion on firewalls.

> We all need protection --- this is true. But the transsexual has much
> more bad verbiage aimed at "his (her) kind" than a run of the mill,
> average person, whatever that may be.

Fear and mistrust and a lack of understanding. The way to defeat that
is education and talking, not forcing a plan of action down the
throats of the people who are most likely to be inclined to be open
and accepting.

> When you go to computer conferences, how often does someone put their
> hands all over you?

I don't go to computer conferences because they're filled with people
who are far too smart and therefore it tends to make me uncomfortable.
Maybe there should be protection for my type (I'd describe myself only
as a good jobbing coder with a better-than-average problem-solving
skill) against ubergeeks so I'm not made to feel uncomfortable at
conferences? Forget that the ubergeeks are the people who make the
stuff work that the conference is there for, it's not fair that they
make me feel left out because my brain is wired differently, now is
it?

> If you think the author of the preceding article is lying, google the
> combination of "groped" and "Linux conference". Women are the minority
> at these conferences, yet many more hands reach out and grab them.

And there are laws designed to stop that sort of behaviour. It's
called assault and the police will get involved, because that's their
job. It's not ours.

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Steve Litt]

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 +
Geoff Winkless  wrote:

> On 23 January 2016 at 21:59, Steve Litt 
> wrote:
> > I'm reminded of a person on a computer on a no-Internet-connection
> > LAN saying that everyone needs equal protection from firewalls.
> > Ummm, no. The Internet connected firewall has many, many more
> > attempts made against it than the guy on the island LAN.  
> 
> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
> to the same level of protection. 

The preceding two sentences form a distinction that will need some
elaboration.

> I'm also making the point that your
> Island guy might have a mobile phone that's linked to his computer
> that you don't know about and you're assuming that cos he's on an
> island he has no right to have an opinion on firewalls.

Come on, the preceding is contrived to the point of being silly. You
know exactly what I mean.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28




-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/23/2016 01:59 PM, Steve Litt wrote:


We all need the necessary protection, which is not necessarily equal
protection, because some of us are subjected to much more harassment.
And I think we all need to walk a mile in other peoples shoes before
assuming others need only the meager amount of protection we need.


Everyone needs protection in some form or another.

The point, is that everyone deserves a fair shake and equal shake. There 
is no arguing that except to make a argument on false pretence.


If a woman is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k.
If a man is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k.
If a transgender is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k.
If a homosexual is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k.

I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that 
generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse? The 
individual started the conversation and I am also classified as obese 
(barely, I won't be in a month).


I have been accused of being sexist because I asked if there was chalk 
(for bouldering) that was better for women because their skin is 
generally softer and the chalk wasn't staying on the respective persons 
hand. A scientific sexist fact.


I have been accused of being sexist because I said it wasn't sexist that 
Samsung doesn't make full feature/performance phones that are smaller 
for a woman's hands.


The tl;dr; here is:

If a "human" is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k..
If a human is not being respected in this community, it is not o.k..

Anything that tries to create an unbalanced protected class is a 
non-starter.



Sincerely,

JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc.  http://the.postgres.company/
 +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Steve Litt]

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:09:32 -0500
Melvin Davidson  wrote:

> I been pretty quiet about this whole discussion, but now I have to
> ask the following questions.
> 
> This is an INTERNET SUPPORT FORUM.
> Just how in the hell is it possible for anyone to have their actual
> sex detected unless they voluntarily provide it?

Given that my name is "Steve", I doubt anyone thinks I'm a woman. If I
were a woman named "Stephanie", should I be expected to assume a
different name in preference to making rules against saying bad things
about people and groups, unrelated to the topic of the mailing list?

> Further to the point, how is it possible to harass sexually (or
> physically) molest anyone in this forum unless they provide
> information and agree to meet in person.

I could tell crude jokes about rape. I could a woman's worth is
proportional to her looks. I could arbitrarily attribute the lower
female participation in tech to lack of intelligence. If it were just
me, it would be just one asshole mouthing off. 

But add a couple more like me, with minimal repudiation by others, and
perhaps the same old cast of characters shouting down any repudiation
with that tired old "free speech" argument that some always seem to
apply to completely offtopic negative spew, and some women who might
have made big contributions have left the project.

> Please, drop the argument about protecting against physical or verbal
> abuse, 

Yeah, if everyone else does. But a code of conduct is actually a good
idea, because there are a lot of vicious, worthless clowns out there
who like to issue gratuitous insults.

> because it does not apply to this forum.

False.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28




-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

Hi PostgreSQL General.

I get that my short, snarky posts don’t help my argument, but I admit to being 
a bit frustrated that the posts wherein I have tried to lay out a position get 
little or no response. So let me try again.

1. Items in the current draft of the CoC can be manipulated by abusers to claim 
that they were just expressing an opinion or were ignorant of their tone. The 
ability to say that, and reference a specific item in the CoC when doing so, 
introduces an element of inconsistency that can lead people to doubt that 
statements are in violation of the CoC. One might think that “You can not 
violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the reason”, and yet that 
is exactly what is likely to happen. One can, and one will, and then how will 
those evaluating a case of reported abuse handle it? If someone says, “I was 
abused as defined in Bullet 2,” but the abuser says, “I am protected in my 
speech by Bullets 1 and 3,” what’s going to happen?

Related: http://paddy.io/posts/professional-concerns/

2. This document has been written and edited, in the main, by people who have 
not, to my knowledge, experienced the kind of abuse we want to prevent. Nor do 
they have experience in writing a document like this in such a way to make it 
consistent and effective, and to make targets of abuse feel safe here. We 
really should be taking advantage of the expertise of those who have 
experienced these issues, who have seen what has worked and what hasn’t, and 
can advise us on the most likely approach for success. The Contributor Covenant 
tries to encapsulate such expertise in a way that’s easy for communities to 
develop. But if our community doesn’t like the Covenant, I think we should 
bring in the expertise to help us craft a document that’s likely to be the most 
effective. There are a number of consultants in this space who have 
tremendously helped other communities I’ve participated in, such as the XOXO 
Festival.

3. If I understand correctly, the impetus for adopting a CoC (which, believe 
me, I laud in no uncertain terms) was this post by Randi Harper about her 
experience reporting abuse to the FreeBSD community:

  http://blog.randi.io/2015/12/31/the-developer-formerly-known-as-freebsdgirl/

Ideally, by adopting a CoC and an enforcement policy, we can try to prevent bad 
experiences for people reporting abuse. However, in this example, the abuse, 
which came from a FreeBSD committer and was aimed at another, took place on 
Twitter, not in a FreeBSD forum. However, the rules of the FreeBSD community at 
that time did not cover abuse outside sanctioned community forums. As a result, 
the FreeBSd core:

> weren’t willing to take action on threats because they didn’t happen on the 
> mailing list — despite them happening in a venue where the committer publicly 
> identified himself as a member of the project. 

The proposed CoC does not cover this situation, either, at least not as 
directly as it should. So if someone who identified as a PostgreSQL community 
member abused someone else on Twitter or Facebook, and that abuse was reported 
to the PostgreSQL community (by whatever policy the community will need to 
spell out), will the abuse enforcement team be able to do anything about it, by 
the proposed CoC? I suspect not. The third bullet item refers only to the 
community “collaborative space”. It should also cover forums outside the 
community’s own collaborative spaces. Otherwise, if someone in our community 
abuses someone in an outside forum, but is allowed to continue to participate 
in the community, then the target of that abuse will not feel safe here. The 
abuser, however, will. Is that an outcome we really want? If not, how do we 
make explicit that it won’t happen?

Look, I’m not an authority on this stuff, either. But I understand that rules, 
such as those in a Code of Conduct, must be explicit and as unambiguous as 
language will allow. And it’s pretty easy for me, a non-expert in the fields of 
law or abuse mitigation, to see oversights and contradictions that can and will 
be exploited by abusers. We should close them. Ideally the core organization 
would hire one or more experts to help us out, or else would take advantage of 
the fruits of their past labors and adopt something that has already been 
thought-through by experts and adopted by a wide range of communities. Will it 
be perfect? No. Can we make it good enough to make people feel safe? Absolutely.

This isn’t about compromise, mind. If what we want to do is to let people know 
that they are safe from abuse in this community and from members of this 
community, that we take abuse seriously and will act on reports expeditiously, 
then I don’t see how the proposed CoC get us there.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Steve Litt]

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:12:15 +
Geoff Winkless  wrote:

> On 23 January 2016 at 18:07, David E. Wheeler 
> wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
> > wrote:  
> >> A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.  
> >
> > Says someone who requires no protection at all.  
> 
> I must object to the repeated assertions that certain people in this
> community require no protection, or have no reason to, as a way of
> discounting their arguments.
> 
> In addition you might appreciate the irony if you took the time to
> consider the (reasonably recent) history of people with names like his
> before stating that Josh requires no protection. Everyone is entitled
> to the same level of protection, whatever their race, gender
> alignment, sexuality or whatever, and that includes us white
> middle-class men, however guilty you appear to feel the need to be
> about being one.

I'm reminded of a person on a computer on a no-Internet-connection LAN
saying that everyone needs equal protection from firewalls. Ummm, no.
The Internet connected firewall has many, many more attempts made
against it than the guy on the island LAN.

We all need protection --- this is true. But the transsexual has much
more bad verbiage aimed at "his (her) kind" than a run of the mill,
average person, whatever that may be.

When you go to computer conferences, how often does someone put their
hands all over you? Read this:

http://blog.valerieaurora.org/2010/11/08/its-not-just-noirin/

If you think the author of the preceding article is lying, google the
combination of "groped" and "Linux conference". Women are the minority
at these conferences, yet many more hands reach out and grab them.

We all need the necessary protection, which is not necessarily equal
protection, because some of us are subjected to much more harassment.
And I think we all need to walk a mile in other peoples shoes before
assuming others need only the meager amount of protection we need.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28




-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Steve Litt]

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:43:11 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake"  wrote:


> I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that 
> generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse?
> The individual started the conversation and I am also classified as
> obese (barely, I won't be in a month).

Perfect!

I know a person who is fat because his/her (I'll call the person male
from now on) thyroid was removed, and weight control is extremely
difficult under those circumstances. Do you think he'd feel welcome on
a list where somebody said "generally speaking, obesity is a matter of
diet and exercise?"[1] And then perhaps someone else says he thinks fat
people are lazy.

Is my overweight friend going to set you straight? Probably not. He
knows how much antifat prejudice exists in the employment marketplace,
and doesn't want to do anything do the slightest thing to "out" himself
to potential networking associates who haven't seen him in person.

And for what? What does a person's weight have to do with a great
and powerful Open Source relational database? Not a dam thing.

Hey, if the conflict is about technology, by all means have at it. It's
an argument that needs to happen in order to produce the best result.
But when it comes to gender, gender preference, gender-assignment,
race, nationality, religion, body shape, or political party (unless the
party takes a stand on technology), the CoC should ban negative
statements about that crap.

[1] I'm not faulting your example. Your example is relevant to the
discussion. I'm faulting a hypothetical person who comes on the list
and says that, apropos to nothing.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28




-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Regina Obe]

This is mostly in response to David's recent comments.  I should say David,
you are really beginning to make me feel unsafe.
By unsafe I mean my mental safety of being able to speak truthfully without
fear of being kicked out of a community I love.

I do not think we need a Coc and if we do, it's only to protect me from
people like this Kurtis guy:

https://twitter.com/siloraptor/status/690637345972981760

So if we have a Coc, I want all people who are on Core and Coc committee  to
be exempt from it.  Because if I can't trust them I can't trust anybody in
the PostgreSQL group.

So here are some comments to your comments David:


> 3. If I understand correctly, the impetus for adopting a CoC (which,
believe me, I laud in no uncertain terms) was this post by Randi Harper
about her experience reporting abuse to the FreeBSD community:

  >
http://blog.randi.io/2015/12/31/the-developer-formerly-known-as-freebsdgirl/

> Ideally, by adopting a CoC and an enforcement policy, we can try to
prevent bad experiences for people reporting abuse. However, in this
example, the abuse, which came from a 
> FreeBSD committer and was aimed at another, took place on Twitter, not in
a FreeBSD forum. However, the rules of the FreeBSD community at that time
did not cover abuse outside 
> sanctioned community forums. As a result, the FreeBSd core:

I brought that up by the way and is what broke my camel's back about simply
ignoring this nonsense and going about my business doing PostGIS and tech
writing.
I personally went and talked to all the people that supposedly harassed
Randi and guess what?
They happened to be very nice people, that seemed emotionally traumatized by
her unjust assaults and her hiding behind (I'M A WOMAN YOU CAN'T TOUCH ME -
trump card). 
 In search of the truth, I found new friends.  

I don't want to even go into detail about the torture in community and
outside she put this poor guy thru what she put him thru I would expect her
to pay a million dollars in law-suits.

https://twitter.com/siloraptor/status/689969604102328320

As for her, she blocked me because I said after studying the evidence I
found her accusations baseless.


> Look, I'm not an authority on this stuff, either. But I understand that
rules, such as those in a Code of Conduct, must be explicit and as
unambiguous as language will allow.

Those who claim to be authorities are the most narrow-minded, self-absorbed,
culturally sheltered people I have ever met.  They can only think of
unambiguity in their own minds.

Chis Travers has demonstrated, that though he's white, he's been exposed to
so many cultures that he has a sense of how each feels. His experiences make
him an authority.
George Winkless has faced abuse and bullying.  He knows what it is when he
sees it.  Forget he's white.  His experiences make him an authority.
Josh Drake has to put up with 2 women every day being the only guy in his
immediate family.  Ironically he probably has a better perspective on the
"How women feel?" story than I do.

Now as for me true I'm a mixed race (Half-black, Half-white, woman, and I'm
a dual citizen - Half-Nigerian/ Half American and married to a Chinese man).
I should be the master authority, but guess what, I don't consider myself
one.

If I'm in an all black group I'm asked -- "You're part white, what do you
think white people think about this?" - I say, if you have a group of white
people, they'll all disagree with each other

If I'm in an all white group I'm asked -- "You're black what do black people
think?" - Well Nigerians think very differently than non-Nigerians, and I'm
not usually in an all black group that is not my extended Nigerian family.

If I'm in my husband's family meeting -- "Hmm Regina likes this food, I
wonder if that means all non-Chinese will like this" - curiously enough they
all pass me there - Red-bean porridge dessert, and I remain puzzled why
Chinese hand out desserts that their people don't seem to care for.

if I'm in an all-male group, I'm asked, "You're a woman, do you feel FOSS is
a rape culture.  Has someone tried to rape you in conferences? Do you feel
unsafe"   And I'll 

a) Point them to Josh Drake, cause he's had more experience dealing with
women than I have
b) Also point out that I've lived under the shadow of my older brothers,
following them around, had boy hand-me down toys, had a mother who was
"Daddy's favorite girl".
So essentially I'm a Tom-boy that feels extremely uncomfortable in all
female groups.  They look like me, but they are foreign creatures to me.  I
feel I understand the "male" psyche better if there is such a thing.

Finally I've suffered a lot of bullying in youth (and I mean real unsafe
kind like running from the bus when being chased by a gang of Italian boys
in an all-italian neighborhoo ready to lynch you kind of bullying) and I bet
most geeks have, so we are all very experienced on the subject and I would
hope wouldn't wish it on anyone else.  We don't need a Coc to tell us that.
I 

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 19:47, Luz Violeta  wrote:
> And that's the foundation on
> which the CoC is being written. I saw the CoC go down, down, and down in
> content and quality, not taking stances for nothing and falling into
> generalizations.

As I understand it the main motivation for not wanting to accept the
Contributor Covenant is that experience has shown that it forces the
project team to behave as judge and jury on a contributor's personal
life. If you cannot accept that that is a reasonable standpoint, then
I guess we have nowhere to go. If you can, then please make your
suggestions as to how it can be improved within that limit; however
saying "why don't you just accept the CC" will not get anywhere.

> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the
> mailing list ...

Welcome to the list, I can't speak for anyone else but personally I
hope it brings you the joy you seek.

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:53:28PM -, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:

> > While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do
> with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.
> 
> All you have to do is to check it out. 
> 
> As to its relevance. It comes down to listening to everyone's needs.
> Identifying next major requirements and implementing it before the
> competition.  

Indeed. And PostgreSQL's been brilliant with that so
far even without a CoC.

A wholehearted Thank You! to all having worked/working on PostgreSQL !

Karsten Hilbert
on behalf of the GNUmed EMR project
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta wrote:

Hi David !
I totally share your toughts. I was following the whole CoC discussion,
and as a transgender woman found myself with a lot of sadness. Because
what happened in that discussion, happens in some other projects that I
liked technically and used for a long time.

It's sad, because all those who participated in the discussion were
people that are not exposed to the experiences we live (and by that, I
mean everyone not fitting in the hegemony of that white guy in the IT
industry), and by consequence they don't have sensibility/empathy to
notice or understand what's out of place ... or these people are totally
limited in how much of that sensibility/empathy can get. And that's the
foundation on which the CoC is being written. I saw the CoC go down,
down, and down in content and quality, not taking stances for nothing
and falling into generalizations.

I truly hope that open source communities can move forward on the social
aspect (the community), so more people can feel ok/safe to come by and
put hands to the work without feeling exposed to violent situations.
And, about some comments/signatures I saw floating around the CoC
discussion, I will just say that this is not being about weak, pitiful,
etc ... sometimes, you just get tired or you just cant have your armor
all day on, all week on, all month on, all year on ... all life on, and
sometimes you prefer to avoid these situations, and do something else in
a safer enviroment, so you have a moment when you can take the damn
armor off and simply worrying about having fun.

This is pretty much my personal opinion.

Hugs ~

P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to
the mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come
forward and say something, dunno.



I do not see a shitstorm in the making and welcome to the list.


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


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Alvaro Herrera]

Oliver Elphick wrote:
> (Replying to the digest post)
> 
> Having watched this discussion from the start, I think the project
> would be better off without any CoC.  The list has always been
> conducted well and if something isn't broken you shouldn't try to fix
> it.

FWIW, I agree that we don't need a CoC.

However, those of us who have never been attacked/abused would naturally
state that there have never been any attacks/abuses, and I believe
that's false -- in other words I believe some people would consider
themselves to have been attacked/abused, even if some external observers
might not necessarily agree that they were being attacked/abused.

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Rajeev Bhatta]

On Jan 22, 2016 23:59, "David E. Wheeler"  wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Geoff Winkless  wrote: 
>
> >> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak. 
> > 
> > Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else" 
> > to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable? 
> > Because the only way in which I can see it doesn't align with the 
> > Contributor Covenant is that the CoC doesn't consider someone's 
> > personal opinions, either private or expressed outside the Postgresql 
> > arena, to be the responsibility of the Postgres team. 
>
> If this is the latest: 
>
>   http://postgresql.nabble.com/CoC-Final-td5882762.html 
>
> Then: 
>
> > * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views. 
>
> This point allows anyone who has been reported for a violation to say that 
> they simply have an opposing point of view, and why can’t you respect that? 
> It’s an out for anyone in violation. 
>
> > * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free 
> > of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. 
>
> This allows a violator to claim ignorance. The “I didn’t know I was being 
> harassing!” ‘defense’ works.  It plays into the “geeks are  bad at social” 
> fallacy, and completely ignores that a lot of abusers intentionally craft “oh 
> I didn’t know” stories/personas to get away with their abuse. 
>
> > * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants 
> > should always assume good intentions. 
>
> This allows the “I didn’t realize my tone was off, can’t you assume I have 
> good intentions?” defense. 
>
> > * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a 
> > pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be 
> > tolerated. 
>
> This should point to a policy for handling violations. What does “will not be 
> tolerated” mean? It needn’t be spelled out in the CoC, but it must be spelled 
> out and pointed at from the CoC. 
>
> This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don’t 
> want to be misunderstood. There is a lot here to let violators protect 
> themselves in the event of a reported violation, but little to make 
> vulnerable people feel safe. It is the latter that needs to be the message of 
> the CoC, not the former. 

I agree. However the CoC needs to protect all, while there are some clear lines 
of conduct that everyone should adhere to for eg. Your calling of the group, a 
group of white people would clearly be IMO out of line, while there are some 
shady situations where the meaning from one end could be misunderstood by other 
and it may not fall under the realms of a violation. We need a CoC to protect 
both situations. If you have ideas or suggestions that can make the CoC better, 
I think it would be good to share that in the other CoC thread.

>
> Those of us who fear offending without meaning to, or being misunderstood, 
> can best serve the aims of a CoC -- openness and safety -- by being open to 
> learning from our mistakes rather than trying to defend them on the basis of 
> intent. 
>
> Best, 
>
> David 
>

-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Regina Obe]

Geoff,

Are you a woman of color of Black descent?  You seem to have the same exact 
opinions that I do.  How can that be?  

Thanks,
Regina

-Original Message-
From: Geoff Winkless [mailto:pgsqlad...@geoff.dj] 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:06 PM
To: Postgres General 
Cc: David E. Wheeler 
Subject: Re: Let's Do the CoC Right

I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the group because 
you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it worth your while 
answering my questions when I send it to you off-list.

On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:
>
>>> The fact that it was  open for all  does not mean that it was an inclusive 
>>> discussion.
>>
>> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be 
>> subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive.
>
> It excludes people who don t participate in the list because of issues they 
> ve had there in the past. Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring 
> those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in 
> similar positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience 
> over time.

As a group the postgres team have decided the level to which they wish to make 
it clear that they welcome everyone.

What they will not agree to do is leave members open to the SJWs that have 
abused the existing Covenant. If you were to bother to read the discussions you 
would know this, and to deny that you could find anything about it on the 
internet is frankly disingenuous, because typing "contributor covenant issues" 
brings up references to Opalgate on the second page.

The Covenant deliberately and explicitly bars a significant proportion of the 
world's population who disagree with its principles. The Postgres developers 
believe that it's not their job to implement social justice, and instead 
decided to implement what they believe to be an acceptable compromise.

Anyone who considers that they are entitled to require the postgres team to 
commit to behave in a way with which they are uncomfortable is actively 
unwelcome. Why is that unreasonable?

Geoff





-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 07:05:49PM +, Geoff Winkless wrote:

> Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement
> social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to
> be an acceptable compromise.

In fact, they decided to implement PostgreSQL - and I cannot
thank them enough for that :-)

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0300, Luz Violeta wrote:

> It's sad, because all those who participated in the discussion were people
> that are not exposed to the experiences we live (and by that, I mean
> everyone not fitting in the hegemony of that white guy in the IT industry),
> and by consequence they don't have sensibility/empathy to notice or
> understand what's out of place

I am fairly sure we can _not_ safely assert these two things:

participants being "white guy in the IT industry"

and

participants "don't have sensibility/empathy to notice or
understand what's out of place"

Best regards,
Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0300, Luz Violeta wrote:

> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the
> mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come forward and
> say something, dunno.

Not that I've got much to say around here ;-)  but, welcome
to the list ! :-D

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Jerome Wagner]

Hello,

I do not intervene much on the list and am not an english native speaker,
but here are some thoughts :

It seems to me that it is very hard to find good words (which should find
their way in other languages) to summarize what is a decent conduct in an
open source project.

Don't we all (or at least peaceful people) want to have a decent conduct,
respectful of others, be it in open source projets, in conferences, or in
life in general ?

Are we not going to end up with some sort of "human rights declaration" ?
which by the way is already translated in many languages here -
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/SearchByLang.aspx

I am not saying that the declaration of human rights is perfect (I should
re-read it) but are we going to write something better on this thread ?
Shouldn't we better use all that energy to modify the declaration of human
rights if there is an obvious problem with it ?

What is the goal of this ? reject people who have sub-par conduct ? have
some kind of legal way to ban them from the project ? Is this like a
"constitution" for the project ?

Anyone can participate in an open source project. Communication and human
interactions, even hidden behind a computer screen, are key to this.

We should maybe try and fix things without needing to write complicated
things to say that one's person freedom ends where another's begin.

I understand that some people sometimes feel rejected or blamed or hurt by
writings or acts that are innapropriate to them or innapropriate in general.

If they can speak out, a healthy community will help them sort and maybe
fix the problem.
If they cannot speak out, then maybe there needs to be someone in the
community who has this "I am all ears and happy to try and protect
everyone's freedom" attitude so that this person can try and sort things
out anonymously.

I am maybe too naïve and put too much trust in the good sides of human
nature, but I hope this helps in some way.

Jérôme






On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Luz Violeta 
wrote:

> Hi David !
> I totally share your toughts. I was following the whole CoC discussion,
> and as a transgender woman found myself with a lot of sadness. Because what
> happened in that discussion, happens in some other projects that I liked
> technically and used for a long time.
>
> It's sad, because all those who participated in the discussion were people
> that are not exposed to the experiences we live (and by that, I mean
> everyone not fitting in the hegemony of that white guy in the IT industry),
> and by consequence they don't have sensibility/empathy to notice or
> understand what's out of place ... or these people are totally limited in
> how much of that sensibility/empathy can get. And that's the foundation on
> which the CoC is being written. I saw the CoC go down, down, and down in
> content and quality, not taking stances for nothing and falling into
> generalizations.
>
> I truly hope that open source communities can move forward on the social
> aspect (the community), so more people can feel ok/safe to come by and put
> hands to the work without feeling exposed to violent situations. And, about
> some comments/signatures I saw floating around the CoC discussion, I will
> just say that this is not being about weak, pitiful, etc ... sometimes, you
> just get tired or you just cant have your armor all day on, all week on,
> all month on, all year on ... all life on, and sometimes you prefer to
> avoid these situations, and do something else in a safer enviroment, so you
> have a moment when you can take the damn armor off and simply worrying
> about having fun.
>
> This is pretty much my personal opinion.
>
> Hugs ~
>
> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the
> mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come forward and
> say something, dunno.
>
> On 01/22/2016 04:00 AM, Rajeev Bhatta wrote:
>
>> On Friday 22 January 2016 10:55 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>> Fellow PostgreSQLers,
>>>
>>> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this
>>> document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to
>>> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I
>>> missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the
>>> target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the
>>> level of many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of
>>> personally, in this community and others, who have. If those people are not
>>> speaking up here, I suspect it’s because they don’t expect to be heard. A
>>> bunch of white guys who run the project have decided what it’s gonna be,
>>> and mostly cut things out since these threads started.
>>>
>>> But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the
>>> people who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered
>>> what sorts of things should be covered, what topics 

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Oliver Elphick]

(Replying to the digest post)

Having watched this discussion from the start, I think the project
would be better off without any CoC.  The list has always been
conducted well and if something isn't broken you shouldn't try to fix
it.

-- 
Oliver Elphick
Lincolnshire, England



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Magnus Hagander]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David E. Wheeler 
wrote:

>
>
> They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots.
>
>

Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely
statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and*
the CoC suggested by others.


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 19:37, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander  wrote:
>
>> Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely 
>> statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and* the 
>> CoC suggested by others.
>
> It may well violate the Contributor Covenant (my apologies, I was out of 
> line), but not the current draft of the CoC, IME. Why? Because that’s just my 
> opinion, and the CoC draft formally recognizes my right to have an “opposing 
> view”.

You are welcome to hold that view, but you are not welcome to express
it in a personal derogatory way. At no point does the CoC say "you can
come here and _express_ your opinions in an unfettered manner".

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Rajeev Bhatta]

On Jan 22, 2016 23:00, "David E. Wheeler"  wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote: 
>
> >> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues 
> >> they’ve had there in the past. 
> > 
> > When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up 
> > either directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would expect 
> > verifiable information. 
>
> So here we have a chicken-and-egg issue. If there is no CoC (or an 
> insufficient one), then people who have been hurt in the past don’t want to 
> participate. You need the security of a CoC before it’s safe to come back. It 
> is not up to them to prove themselves to you, to verify that they have 
> suffered just for some sort of confirmation for you. 

It is unfortunate that someone was hurt and had to stop participating.. However 
the purpose of the CoC is to ensure the same situation does not repeat itself. 
For this I do not think anyone should convince anyone who has left rather build 
an environment so that current and new contributors are comfortable and do not 
find a hostile community .. If the people who left were passionate enough to 
the success of the project then the information on an inclusion of an CoC would 
reach them and they can join back... 

Any process or change is perfected over course of time.. The current CoC may 
not be perfect but time will make it. 

>
> The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the 
> immediate confines of a single mail list. Or even the community itself. 
> People have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help 
> fixing the things over which they left? 

Ideas can be solicited from other groups but CoC should be created and enforced 
by our community alone... 
>
> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak. 

I am sorry to hear that... The fact that you are raising your opinion shows 
your passion for postgres project which is very appreciated and I hope if there 
are others they should be back and see that there is an effort to minimize the 
ill treatment they had to suffer. 
>
> Best, 
>
> David 
>

-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[John R Pierce]

On 1/22/2016 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David E. Wheeler 
> wrote:




They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots.



Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely 
statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant 
*and* the CoC suggested by others.



hahahaha, for that matter so does referring to them as 'two white 
guys'.   In fact, an armchair lawyer could have a hey-day with each and 
every one of Regina's characterizations of the players in the Ruby soap 
opera.   I was going to use the phrase 'somewhat snarky' in that last 
sentence but I'll refrain as it might be taken as a character 
assassination and be in violation of some covenent or another.


I'm firmly in the 'keep this as short, simple, and terse as possible' 
camp, with zero references to any specific sorts of categories of 
differences.   How about "off topic BS will not be tolerated"  ?


oh look, this entire discussion of CoC's is off topic for 
PostgreSQL-general, and its most certainly 'BS' by my reckoning! (tongue 
planted in cheek).








--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Steve Litt]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:25:58 -0800
Adrian Klaver  wrote:


> When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up 
> either directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would 
> expect verifiable information.

Maybe they can't.

Imagine for a second that I'm a homosexual, and that a guy cracked a
crude joke about homosexuals, and three or four people post that it was
a funny joke. Imagine further that I work for one of those troglodyte
employers who would fire me the instant they found out I was a
homosexual, and I come from a family that would disown me if they found
out. I wouldn't speak up. I wouldn't even say "I'm not a homosexual,
but I think your words are hurtful!" Because I would be so afraid of
being found out that I would not give one hint. I'd just leave.

Now imagine I was from one of those countries where homosexuality is
punishable by death. 

Speaking up is a privilege often reserved for the in crowd and the
revolutionary.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28




-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Rajeev Bhatta  wrote:

> Any process or change is perfected over course of time.. The current CoC may 
> not be perfect but time will make it. 

It is better than none, I’ll grant you, but it could be SOOO much better right 
now.

> Ideas can be solicited from other groups but CoC should be created and 
> enforced by our community alone… 

It’s fair to draw on the experience and expertise of others who have gone 
before us, yes.

>> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak. 
> 
> I am sorry to hear that... The fact that you are raising your opinion shows 
> your passion for postgres project which is very appreciated and I hope if 
> there are others they should be back and see that there is an effort to 
> minimize the ill treatment they had to suffer. 

Oh, no doubt, but the fact that they’re not participating (or barely) shows 
that the current proposal is insufficient.

Best,

David

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the
group because you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it
worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you
off-list.

On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:
>
>>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
>>> discussion.
>>
>> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be 
>> subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive.
>
> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues 
> they’ve had there in the past. Best way for it to be inclusive is to either 
> bring those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people 
> in similar positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience 
> over time.

As a group the postgres team have decided the level to which they wish
to make it clear that they welcome everyone.

What they will not agree to do is leave members open to the SJWs that
have abused the existing Covenant. If you were to bother to read the
discussions you would know this, and to deny that you could find
anything about it on the internet is frankly disingenuous, because
typing "contributor covenant issues" brings up references to Opalgate
on the second page.

The Covenant deliberately and explicitly bars a significant proportion
of the world's population who disagree with its principles. The
Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement
social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to
be an acceptable compromise.

Anyone who considers that they are entitled to require the postgres
team to commit to behave in a way with which they are uncomfortable is
actively unwelcome. Why is that unreasonable?

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 11:05 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the
group because you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it
worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you
off-list.

On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler  wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:


The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
discussion.


To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject 
to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive.


It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve 
had there in the past. Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring those 
people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar 
positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time.


As a group the postgres team have decided the level to which they wish
to make it clear that they welcome everyone.

What they will not agree to do is leave members open to the SJWs that
have abused the existing Covenant. If you were to bother to read the
discussions you would know this, and to deny that you could find
anything about it on the internet is frankly disingenuous, because
typing "contributor covenant issues" brings up references to Opalgate
on the second page.

The Covenant deliberately and explicitly bars a significant proportion
of the world's population who disagree with its principles. The
Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement
social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to
be an acceptable compromise.


+1. I am personally offended by the Covenant as it assumes projects are 
guilty and need to prove innocence which goes against the principles I 
was raised on. Of course the previous sentence could be construed as 
offensive as it reflects a Anglo-American view.




Anyone who considers that they are entitled to require the postgres
team to commit to behave in a way with which they are uncomfortable is
actively unwelcome. Why is that unreasonable?

Geoff





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


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Magnus Hagander]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, David E. Wheeler 
wrote:

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander  wrote:
>
> > Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely
> statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and*
> the CoC suggested by others.
>
> It may well violate the Contributor Covenant (my apologies, I was out of
> line), but not the current draft of the CoC, IME. Why? Because that’s just
> my opinion, and the CoC draft formally recognizes my right to have an
> “opposing view”.
>

Are you really saying this does not violate "* Participants must ensure
that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks."?

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Geoff Winkless  wrote:

>> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.
> 
> Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else"
> to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable?
> Because the only way in which I can see it doesn't align with the
> Contributor Covenant is that the CoC doesn't consider someone's
> personal opinions, either private or expressed outside the Postgresql
> arena, to be the responsibility of the Postgres team.

If this is the latest:

  http://postgresql.nabble.com/CoC-Final-td5882762.html

Then:

> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views. 

This point allows anyone who has been reported for a violation to say that they 
simply have an opposing point of view, and why can’t you respect that? It’s an 
out for anyone in violation.

> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free 
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. 

This allows a violator to claim ignorance. The “I didn’t know I was being 
harassing!” ‘defense’ works.  It plays into the “geeks are  bad at social” 
fallacy, and completely ignores that a lot of abusers intentionally craft “oh I 
didn’t know” stories/personas to get away with their abuse.

> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants 
> should always assume good intentions. 

This allows the “I didn’t realize my tone was off, can’t you assume I have good 
intentions?” defense.

> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a 
> pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be 
> tolerated. 

This should point to a policy for handling violations. What does “will not be 
tolerated” mean? It needn’t be spelled out in the CoC, but it must be spelled 
out and pointed at from the CoC.

This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don’t 
want to be misunderstood. There is a lot here to let violators protect 
themselves in the event of a reported violation, but little to make vulnerable 
people feel safe. It is the latter that needs to be the message of the CoC, not 
the former.

Those of us who fear offending without meaning to, or being misunderstood, can 
best serve the aims of a CoC -- openness and safety -- by being open to 
learning from our mistakes rather than trying to defend them on the basis of 
intent.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Regina Obe  wrote:

> Again sorry for cutting thread.  I just get the digest.

No worries. :-)

> Ruby is under heavy threat to adopt this, but they have not yet to my 
> knowledge.  Here is the thread:

Threat?

> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004
> 
> Reading the thread requires a lot of attention and also face recognition.  So 
> I shall point out the actors and actresses in this conversation you should 
> pay close attention to:
> 
> Coraline Ada -  https://www.patreon.com/coraline?ty=h - Please give money to 
> her cause, as it's way more important than the poor folk who work to make 
> PostgreSQL better for free and never ask you for a dime

$300 a month to work on promoting diversity in open-source projects? It’s worth 
*so* much more than that.

> Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene -  
> https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200  
> https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 
> Yes indeed he was very angered at Elia's (key Opal developer) saying gender 
> reassignment is wrong for young children, and spending like $50,000 on gender 
> reassignment is being out of touch with reality.  Like me saying smokers are 
> killing themselves and spending money on 3 packs of cigrarettes a day could 
> be better used.

I don’t follow.

> Strand McCutchen - https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/942  (wow what a 
> trooper, he's going to help Opal polish off the Contributor Convenant so it's 
> in a shape they can accept)

Looks like it went in.

  https://github.com/opal/opal/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

> Ruby Creator - Yukihiro Matsumoto
> And you must agree after seeing all the evidence that Yukihiro Matsumoto (who 
> is not even a white guy) inventor of ruby must be a jerk for not adopting 
> this wonderful thing to make people feel welcome and respected.  What awful 
> person would not.  How about me?

It depends on his reasons, I suppose. 

> Let's not forget about Meredith Patterson -  
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI53yys3dbA=youtu.be=538  What has 
> she done for open source?
> Please ignore the two white guys in the talk, they are just white guys with 
> white guy opinions.

They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[John R Pierce]

On 1/22/2016 9:43 AM, Regina Obe wrote:

Reading the thread requires a lot of attention and also face recognition.  So I 
shall point out the actors and actresses in this conversation you should pay 
close attention to:


ohgood(diety-of-choice). This could be made into a soap opera and 
run on prime time television.




--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz



--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander  wrote:

> Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely 
> statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and* the 
> CoC suggested by others.

It may well violate the Contributor Covenant (my apologies, I was out of line), 
but not the current draft of the CoC, IME. Why? Because that’s just my opinion, 
and the CoC draft formally recognizes my right to have an “opposing view”.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc. 

Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently when 
writing emails. This is because over 50% of our interactions are through body 
language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know each 
other's background, experience and capacities.  

Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our 
freedom is automatically limited by other people's freedom. That's life 
whatever species we care to look at. 

Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on 
this thread someone ,I have no doubt unintentionally and only because of 
current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. 
Even though I am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i. 

As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need direction 
so we can keep the best of traditions for 
whoever may come on board but at the same time have the flexibility to change 
with time.  





-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org 
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 09:56
To: David E. Wheeler
Cc: pgsql-general
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 05:25, David E. Wheeler <da...@justatheory.com> wrote:
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this 
> document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to 
> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I 
> missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target 
> of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid.

Others have addressed the reasons for not going with the Covenant; however I 
would like to make the point that, just because I'm a white straight male, it 
doesn't mean that there haven't been occasions when I have suffered from 
prejudice: I didn't talk the right way, my parents didn't have enough money, 
I'm too geeky, I wore the wrong clothes, I have a name that was a double-gift 
for mean kids (UK readers will remember Rainbow, I expect) etc etc etc.

Admittedly most of that has faded since childhood but there have been aspects 
of it even in places I have worked as an adult (thankfully not where I am now) 
and we don't even have recourse to the legal avenues that have been created for 
racial and sexual discrimination; it's probably one of the reasons that geeks 
find ourselves in these tech-based online communities so often - there's so 
little chance of being bullied by the cool kids.

I also have a feeling that that might have something to do with why there's 
quite such a pushback against the type of person who shouts loudly and 
motivates others to form a mob to get his or her own way (and therefore why the 
covenant is unlikely to gain traction here).

Finally, to open a new thread and effectively say "you know the work that you 
guys have put in over the last month, I'm sure it's fine, and I haven't 
bothered to read the whole thread, but why don't you do it Right instead?" is 
pretty insulting, don't you think?

Geoff


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make 
changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 05:25, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this 
> document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to 
> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I 
> missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target 
> of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid.

Others have addressed the reasons for not going with the Covenant;
however I would like to make the point that, just because I'm a white
straight male, it doesn't mean that there haven't been occasions when
I have suffered from prejudice: I didn't talk the right way, my
parents didn't have enough money, I'm too geeky, I wore the wrong
clothes, I have a name that was a double-gift for mean kids (UK
readers will remember Rainbow, I expect) etc etc etc.

Admittedly most of that has faded since childhood but there have been
aspects of it even in places I have worked as an adult (thankfully not
where I am now) and we don't even have recourse to the legal avenues
that have been created for racial and sexual discrimination; it's
probably one of the reasons that geeks find ourselves in these
tech-based online communities so often - there's so little chance of
being bullied by the cool kids.

I also have a feeling that that might have something to do with why
there's quite such a pushback against the type of person who shouts
loudly and motivates others to form a mob to get his or her own way
(and therefore why the covenant is unlikely to gain traction here).

Finally, to open a new thread and effectively say "you know the work
that you guys have put in over the last month, I'm sure it's fine, and
I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but why don't you do it
Right instead?" is pretty insulting, don't you think?

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta  wrote:

> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the 
> mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come forward and 
> say something, dunno.

Thank you so much for doing so. Up to now it’s just been one more white guy 
(me) saying something. The more folks who can constructively contribute -- and 
especially to shine a light on the contexts of which many of us are unaware -- 
the better the likelihood of getting something that creates the safe 
environment I firmly believe we all want.

Best,

David

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Steve Litt  wrote:

> Speaking up is a privilege often reserved for the in crowd and the
> revolutionary.

+1000

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[John R Pierce]

On 1/22/2016 2:57 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:



On 01/22/2016 03:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some 
while ago. There is definitely more than one way to do this. Best 
regards, A 
Just a gut feeling, but I think this thread had driven the rest of the 
regulars to drink at a bar without wifi 


hmmm, not happy hour on the left coast for a couple more hours :-/

(apologies to any recovering alcoholics out there, this was not meant as 
a taunt or anything)


--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz



--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:32:10PM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> that we do not attempt to "roll our own". Or at the very least, we should 
> strive to understand how other communities arrived at their Codes and 
> why it is working for them.

This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some
while ago.  There is definitely more than one way to do this.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
a...@crankycanuck.ca


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Kevin Grittner]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta  wrote:
>
>> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first
>> mail to the mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope
>> made me come forward and say something, dunno.

Welcome!

I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
present.

> the better the likelihood of getting something that creates the
> safe environment I firmly believe we all want.

Not only do I want that, but I thought we had it.  I have still not
seen anything to show me otherwise; the hypothetical examples I can
remember seeing on these recent threads bear no resemblance to
anything I can remember ever seeing on the PostgreSQL lists.  Can
you point to something as an example of the kind of behavior that
you think a Code of Conduct would have prevented?

Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.

In particular, I think that if (hypothetically) someone who is part
of the community makes some idiotic, offensive, insensitive
statement of blathering idiocy *outside PostgreSQL forums*, they
should enjoy the same right to respect and prevention of attack *on
the PostgreSQL forums* as everyone else.  They just better not
repeat the idiocy here.  I would hope that major contributors would
keep in mind the impact that such statements in other venues might
have on the public perception of the community.  I've come around
to the point of view that encouraging such consideration is outside
the scope of what a Code of Conduct should formally address.

The PostgreSQL forums should be a safe place, and rancor engendered
elsewhere should not be brought in.  Problems should be resolved in
a way that minimizes the chance of escalation, recognizing that
there could be miscommunication.[2]

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

[2] 
http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/2016/01/21/brown-gay-sign-causes-amusing-misunderstanding/79116720/


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Greg Sabino Mullane]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160


David E. Wheeler wrote:

(...good rebuttals to specific points of the proposed Code of Conduct..

> This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don�t 
> want to be misunderstood. There is a lot here to let violators protect 
> themselves in the event of a reported violation, but little to make 
> vulnerable people feel safe. It is the latter that needs to be the message 
> of the CoC, not the former.

Thanks, David, I confess I hadn't seen it in that light before, but you 
make some good points. I think this may indeed be one of those times 
that we do not attempt to "roll our own". Or at the very least, we should 
strive to understand how other communities arrived at their Codes and 
why it is working for them.

- -- 
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201601221729
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iEYEAREDAAYFAlaircQACgkQvJuQZxSWSshcsgCeMsyRvP24YbFD/OTuvQ20/PEf
PHIAn2Gu3ectm6o/L2npNMy+cFBhvD2b
=p/1f
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Rob Sargent]

On 01/22/2016 03:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some 
while ago. There is definitely more than one way to do this. Best 
regards, A 
Just a gut feeling, but I think this thread had driven the rest of the 
regulars to drink at a bar without wifi




--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Regina Obe]

David et. Al,
Sorry for top-posting but it's late, and I'm using lame outlook.
I haven't said anything recently, because I decided to open a bag of popcorn 
and enjoy the Coc debate.

If you read my earlier posts, you should know that I am vehemently against 
anything that sounds like  http://contributor-covenant.org.  True I don't speak 
for all mixed race women or women or minorities or left-handers or windows 
users, or whatever special interest group you think I belong to.  I speak for 
myself.

I am especially disgusted by the people behind http://contributor-covenant.org. 
 They have done nothing but to silence the voices of minorities. That's being 
kind to them.

A Coc if we have one, which I personally don't think we should, should assume 
all people are here because they find PostgreSQL useful and want to encourage  
its use and extend its functionality.

So like I have said before as an example PostGIS doesn't have a Coc listed on 
our website, but we do have this:
http://postgis.net/development/  "Getting Involved" section, which Paul Ramsey 
put together a while back, and made me feel pretty welcome.

Which essentially says - "we are individuals with a common love for this thing, 
get to know who we are, jump in to help us and your voice will be heard."
That's pretty much all I care about when getting involved in any  community.

Thanks,
Regina

-Original Message-
From: Rajeev Bhatta [mailto:techie.raj...@yahoo.in] 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:00 AM
To: David E. Wheeler ; pgsql-general 

Subject: Re: Let's Do the CoC Right

On Friday 22 January 2016 10:55 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Fellow PostgreSQLers,
>
> I can t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this 
> document, with very little feedback from the people who it s likely to 
> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I 
> missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target 
> of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the level of 
> many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this 
> community and others, who have. If those people are not speaking up here, I 
> suspect it s because they don t expect to be heard. A bunch of white guys who 
> run the project have decided what it s gonna be, and mostly cut things out 
> since these threads started.
>
> But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people 
> who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered what sorts 
> of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to 
> word them so as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to 
> appropriately address issues when they inevitably arise, so that people 
> continue to feel safe.
>
> So I d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I 
> propose that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have already put 
> into this, and simply:
>
> * Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, 
> Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor Covenant, 
> unmodified.
>
>http://contributor-covenant.org
>
> * Put this document in the root directory of the project as 
> CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It should 
> also be listed on the main web site and referenced from appropriate places 
> (such as the mail lists pages).
>
> * Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a 
> separate document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The reporting 
> address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links 
> to a number of existing guides we ought to crib from.
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
Hi David, whatever be the race of the select few who built the CoC, the 
categorization of them as white is inappropriate.. The CoC is meant to be 
allowing free communication across all members of the community irrespective of 
their color, race, sexuality, gender, nationality or for that matter whatever 
their personal viewpoint is.

Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open for 
all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying someone by 
anything is inappropriate.

Thanks

Regards
Rajeev





-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/21/2016 11:00 PM, Rajeev Bhatta wrote:


Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
someone by anything is inappropriate.


+1



--
Command Prompt, Inc.  http://the.postgres.company/
 +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 10:47, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
 wrote:
> A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.

I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't
believe that we should, but that's not the same thing. Everyone is
entitled to their opinion. I don't think we should have one. I'm aware
of the reasons why other people think we should, I don't need
educating, I just believe that its overall impact will be negative or
(at best) neutral.

> Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently 
> when writing emails. This is because over 50% of our interactions are through 
> body language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know 
> each other's background, experience and capacities.

So what you're saying is, email is a bad thing because we can't use
our normal prejudices in advance?

> Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our 
> freedom is automatically limited by other people's freedom. That's life 
> whatever species we care to look at.

I haven't seen anyone making the argument that they should be allowed
to say whatever they want with no regard for others.

> Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on 
> this thread someone ,I have no doubt unintentionally and only because of 
> current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. 
> Even though I am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i.

They did? Apologies if I missed it but the only reference I can find
is that Jim said that he is religious about postgres, which has
nothing at all to do with your (or indeed his) religion. Indeed the
only person who seems to be bringing up religion (rather repeatedly)
is yourself.

> As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need 
> direction so we can keep the best of traditions for
> whoever may come on board but at the same time have the flexibility to change 
> with time.

You've given no clear evidence as to a) whether that's true or b) how
a CoC will actually help to achieve that.

I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is
defined by the people who spend their time writing it. If,  in ten
years' time, some different people come along with a different vision
and set of traditions, then that's up to them, surely?

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

>Farjad wrote
>A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.

>>Geoff wrote
>>I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't believe that 
>>we should, but that's not the same thing. Everyone is entitled
>>to their opinion. I don't think we should have one. I'm aware of the reasons 
>>why other people think we should, 
>>I don't need educating, 

Perhaps you haven't read all the threads. You are not the only person who has 
question the need for Coc. 

Everyone knows people react differently when they are consulting face to face 
than on email. There is a need for etiquette but not necessarily a restrictive 
one. 

>>Geoff wrote
>> I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is 
>> defined by the people who spend their time writing it. 

But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their businesses 
no product will ever stay relevant to end users for long. 
So everyone's problem and comment is relevant and valuable. Even though the 
postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and naturally have a 
greater say.  

Personally speaking i like to learn all the time. If it is constructive and 
useful I don't mind where it comes from.

We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is trying 
to educate you. The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective 
and what is wrong with learning something new? 



-Original Message-
From: gwinkl...@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff 
Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 11:21
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet); Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 10:47, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) 
<farjad.fa...@checknetworks.com> wrote:
> A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.

I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't believe that 
we should, but that's not the same thing. Everyone is entitled to their 
opinion. I don't think we should have one. I'm aware of the reasons why other 
people think we should, I don't need educating, I just believe that its overall 
impact will be negative or (at best) neutral.

> Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently 
> when writing emails. This is because over 50% of our interactions are through 
> body language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know 
> each other's background, experience and capacities.

So what you're saying is, email is a bad thing because we can't use our normal 
prejudices in advance?

> Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our 
> freedom is automatically limited by other people's freedom. That's life 
> whatever species we care to look at.

I haven't seen anyone making the argument that they should be allowed to say 
whatever they want with no regard for others.

> Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on 
> this thread someone ,I have no doubt unintentionally and only because of 
> current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. 
> Even though I am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i.

They did? Apologies if I missed it but the only reference I can find is that 
Jim said that he is religious about postgres, which has nothing at all to do 
with your (or indeed his) religion. Indeed the only person who seems to be 
bringing up religion (rather repeatedly) is yourself.

> As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need 
> direction so we can keep the best of traditions for whoever may come on board 
> but at the same time have the flexibility to change with time.

You've given no clear evidence as to a) whether that's true or b) how a CoC 
will actually help to achieve that.

I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is defined 
by the people who spend their time writing it. If,  in ten years' time, some 
different people come along with a different vision and set of traditions, then 
that's up to them, surely?

Geoff



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 12:08, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
 wrote:
>
> But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their 
> businesses no product will ever stay relevant to end users for long.

Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.

> So everyone's problem and comment is relevant and valuable.
> Even though the postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and 
> naturally have a greater say.

Well no. The Postgresql developers can decide whether everyone else's
comments are relevant to them and, if they decide otherwise, they can
say "no, thanks, we don't want to do that. There are several other
products that might help you, feel free to use those."

Eventually, the people who are asking for those things will either
move to a different database, or become developers either within
postgres or in a fork. That is how Open Source works.

> We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is 
> trying to educate you.

I'm not objecting to people trying to educate me, I'm objecting to
your implication that those people who do not want a CoC are simply
uneducated. I think it's fairly clear, given the amount of discussion
that has gone on, that the people who still don't think it's necessary
are likely to have reached an educated conclusion to that effect.

> The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective and what is 
> wrong with learning something new?

Oh, I see! It's not you who is causing me upset, but rather my fault
for taking it that way?

You really don't see the irony in that, given the context of the discussion?

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

>Geoff wrote
>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.

You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an 
input.  Just yours. 

WOW! Then I suggest put it in Coc. 



-Original Message-
From: gwinkl...@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff 
Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 12:48
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 12:08, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) 
<farjad.fa...@checknetworks.com> wrote:
>
> But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their 
> businesses no product will ever stay relevant to end users for long.

Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.

> So everyone's problem and comment is relevant and valuable.
> Even though the postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and 
> naturally have a greater say.

Well no. The Postgresql developers can decide whether everyone else's comments 
are relevant to them and, if they decide otherwise, they can say "no, thanks, 
we don't want to do that. There are several other products that might help you, 
feel free to use those."

Eventually, the people who are asking for those things will either move to a 
different database, or become developers either within postgres or in a fork. 
That is how Open Source works.

> We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is 
> trying to educate you.

I'm not objecting to people trying to educate me, I'm objecting to your 
implication that those people who do not want a CoC are simply uneducated. I 
think it's fairly clear, given the amount of discussion that has gone on, that 
the people who still don't think it's necessary are likely to have reached an 
educated conclusion to that effect.

> The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective and what is 
> wrong with learning something new?

Oh, I see! It's not you who is causing me upset, but rather my fault for taking 
it that way?

You really don't see the irony in that, given the context of the discussion?

Geoff



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner  wrote:

> I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
> what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
> present.

Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Ruby communities. Shitstorms 
are not unusual when people ask for a CoC.

> Not only do I want that, but I thought we had it.  I have still not
> seen anything to show me otherwise; the hypothetical examples I can
> remember seeing on these recent threads bear no resemblance to
> anything I can remember ever seeing on the PostgreSQL lists.  Can
> you point to something as an example of the kind of behavior that
> you think a Code of Conduct would have prevented?

My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ 
language and actions are free 
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if 
not an outright violation. But one can argue by another point (“tolerant of 
people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds. So the 
demarcations of right and wrong are too easily subject to debate and further 
disagreement. Less ambiguity and contradiction is required.

> Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
> statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
> to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
> make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
> it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.

Some of us do not need protection; we are already privileged members of the 
community. Therefor it’s important to spell out whom we aim to protect.

> In particular, I think that if (hypothetically) someone who is part
> of the community makes some idiotic, offensive, insensitive
> statement of blathering idiocy *outside PostgreSQL forums*, they
> should enjoy the same right to respect and prevention of attack *on
> the PostgreSQL forums* as everyone else.

What if they psychologically abused someone in person, perhaps another member 
of the community, but in a non-community context? Should there be no 
repercussions?

> They just better not
> repeat the idiocy here.  I would hope that major contributors would
> keep in mind the impact that such statements in other venues might
> have on the public perception of the community.  I've come around
> to the point of view that encouraging such consideration is outside
> the scope of what a Code of Conduct should formally address.

In my above example, the victim of the abuse would not feel safe in our 
community, because their abuser would still be a member in good standing. Even 
if they reported that behavior, the would have no expectation of anything being 
done to address it. In this example, the abuser ends up protected by the CoC 
while the victim is not.

This is a very real thing that happens to real people in communities every day. 
IME, we want people to feel safe reporting incidents even if they occur outside 
the community, and that such reports will be taken seriously, with an explicit 
policy for doing so.

> The PostgreSQL forums should be a safe place, and rancor engendered
> elsewhere should not be brought in.  Problems should be resolved in
> a way that minimizes the chance of escalation, recognizing that
> there could be miscommunication.[2]

Rancor isn’t the problem as much as abuse. And most abuse you can’t see unless 
the targets of such abuse feel safe reporting them.

Limiting the policy to community forums is insufficient for making people feel 
safe. This is the whole reason for v1.3.0 of the Contributor Covenant:

  https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/blob/master/changelog#L7

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Bret Stern]

Frankly,

Can we create another COC (Code of Content) for this specific list?

My mailbox is full of non-technical (in my opinion) CoC discussions.
Which I grow tired of.

And to add to this completely impossible COC solution; in my life I've
constantly BEEN offended.
I've been offended financially, technically, physically, grammatically
(as written), and my favorite ..golfically (can't putt).

I believe I'm a better everything by those who have offended me in the
name of life's lessons. I
don' t go to Starbucks and expect a COC 

eg;
You shouldn''t have used an int...and...
why the f%$ckl did you use a godda$%m int you dumb son-of-a-bitchare
the same thing to me,
but the latter clearly could have cost lives.

So for those of us who cannot be offended (no offense). no COC needed.


Cheers (no offense)
Bret Stern (no offense)


ps. If you do pull off the Holy Grail (no offense), I'll be sure to
adhere to it.

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 03:31 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner  wrote:


I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
present.


Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Ruby communities. Shitstorms 
are not unusual when people ask for a CoC.


Not only do I want that, but I thought we had it.  I have still not
seen anything to show me otherwise; the hypothetical examples I can
remember seeing on these recent threads bear no resemblance to
anything I can remember ever seeing on the PostgreSQL lists.  Can
you point to something as an example of the kind of behavior that
you think a Code of Conduct would have prevented?


My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ 
language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if 
not an outright violation. But one can argue by another point (“tolerant of 
people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds. So the 
demarcations of right and wrong are too easily subject to debate and further 
disagreement. Less ambiguity and contradiction is required.


Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.


Some of us do not need protection; we are already privileged members of the 
community. Therefor it’s important to spell out whom we aim to protect.


The above is exactly where I figured this was going to go, loaded 
buzzwords, in this case privilege. The fact that it is a buzzword is not 
of consequence, the fact that it is profiling is. Basically it says we 
can look at the color of someone's skin and along with their sex 
determine where to slot them, without reference to what they actually 
think or their life experiences. Now if you want to claim privilege for 
yourself fine, but making a generic statement of privilege is offensive 
to me.





In particular, I think that if (hypothetically) someone who is part
of the community makes some idiotic, offensive, insensitive
statement of blathering idiocy *outside PostgreSQL forums*, they
should enjoy the same right to respect and prevention of attack *on
the PostgreSQL forums* as everyone else.


What if they psychologically abused someone in person, perhaps another member 
of the community, but in a non-community context? Should there be no 
repercussions?






They just better not
repeat the idiocy here.  I would hope that major contributors would
keep in mind the impact that such statements in other venues might
have on the public perception of the community.  I've come around
to the point of view that encouraging such consideration is outside
the scope of what a Code of Conduct should formally address.


In my above example, the victim of the abuse would not feel safe in our 
community, because their abuser would still be a member in good standing. Even 
if they reported that behavior, the would have no expectation of anything being 
done to address it. In this example, the abuser ends up protected by the CoC 
while the victim is not.

This is a very real thing that happens to real people in communities every day. 
IME, we want people to feel safe reporting incidents even if they occur outside 
the community, and that such reports will be taken seriously, with an explicit 
policy for doing so.


The PostgreSQL forums should be a safe place, and rancor engendered
elsewhere should not be brought in.  Problems should be resolved in
a way that minimizes the chance of escalation, recognizing that
there could be miscommunication.[2]


Rancor isn’t the problem as much as abuse. And most abuse you can’t see unless 
the targets of such abuse feel safe reporting them.

Limiting the policy to community forums is insufficient for making people feel 
safe. This is the whole reason for v1.3.0 of the Contributor Covenant:

   https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/blob/master/changelog#L7

Best,

David




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


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:

>> Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
>> for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
>> someone by anything is inappropriate.
> 
> +1

The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
discussion.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:39 AM, Regina Obe  wrote:

> I am especially disgusted by the people behind 
> http://contributor-covenant.org.  They have done nothing but to silence the 
> voices of minorities. That's being kind to them.

Interesting. Got a link for context? I Googled, but saw nothing about 
controversy or other issues in the first few pages. Maybe I need to dig a 
little deeper?

Honestly, I like that other folks have really thought this stuff through, and 
it’s so widely adopted as to be approaching a standard for OSS.

> Which essentially says - "we are individuals with a common love for this 
> thing, get to know who we are, jump in to help us and your voice will be 
> heard."
> That's pretty much all I care about when getting involved in any  community.

Right, but it’s not enough for other people, so insufficiently inclusive.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 09:08 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:


Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
someone by anything is inappropriate.


+1


The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
discussion.


To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be 
subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive. To 
the extent that the whole world was not included, then no. I for one 
think the whole idea is useless because of the above, deciding what 
value between 0 and 7.4 billion should be notified and who in whatever 
value is chosen is more right.




Best,

David




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


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:

>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
>> discussion.
> 
> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be 
> subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive.

It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve 
had there in the past. Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring those 
people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar 
positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time.

Best,

David




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 09:21 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:


The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
discussion.


To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject 
to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive.


It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve 
had there in the past.


When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up 
either directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would 
expect verifiable information.




Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring those people back in, or to 
adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar positions have developed 
through hard thinking and hard experience over time.

Best,

David





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


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

No one has suggested you are a bad person. 

The world is changing towards smaller more agile companies. For postgresql to 
survive it needs to be at the forefront of the wave. 

It is difficult for everyone to cope with so many changes. You are part of the 
team and a good contributor.

So let's keep it that way. 


-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org 
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 13:22
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) 
<farjad.fa...@checknetworks.com> wrote:
>>Geoff wrote
>>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an 
> input.  Just yours.

Now I'm being reasonable and explaining my point, whereas you've descended to 
"YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD PERSON".

My work here is done.

Geoff


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make 
changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
 wrote:
>>Geoff wrote
>>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an 
> input.  Just yours.

Now I'm being reasonable and explaining my point, whereas you've
descended to "YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD PERSON".

My work here is done.

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:51:24PM -, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:

> The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail or 
> software industry. 
> The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where software 
> is concerned. 
> 
> All the predictions are pointing to greater success for smaller more nibble 
> companies. 

While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing
directly to do with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.

Regards,
Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

Geoff, 

The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail or 
software industry. 
The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where software is 
concerned. 

All the predictions are pointing to greater success for smaller more nibble 
companies. 

I believe we need to say things honestly, equally frankly and as politely as 
possibly. Without frank consultation we won't get anywhere. 

I don't think you are bad person. Just that you are resisting change. 

Personally I rather see more contributions as it adds to the momentum of the 
community as a whole. 

Hope this clarifies my position.

-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org 
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 13:22
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) 
<farjad.fa...@checknetworks.com> wrote:
>>Geoff wrote
>>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an 
> input.  Just yours.

Now I'm being reasonable and explaining my point, whereas you've descended to 
"YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD PERSON".

My work here is done.

Geoff


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make 
changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

> While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do
with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.

All you have to do is to check it out. 

As to its relevance. It comes down to listening to everyone's needs.
Identifying next major requirements and implementing it before the
competition.  


-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Karsten Hilbert
Sent: 22 January 2016 15:05
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:51:24PM -, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:

> The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail
or software industry. 
> The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where
software is concerned. 
> 
> All the predictions are pointing to greater success for smaller more
nibble companies. 

While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do
with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.

Regards,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:

>> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues 
>> they’ve had there in the past.
> 
> When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up either 
> directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would expect 
> verifiable information.

So here we have a chicken-and-egg issue. If there is no CoC (or an insufficient 
one), then people who have been hurt in the past don’t want to participate. You 
need the security of a CoC before it’s safe to come back. It is not up to them 
to prove themselves to you, to verify that they have suffered just for some 
sort of confirmation for you.

The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the 
immediate confines of a single mail list. Or even the community itself. People 
have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help fixing the 
things over which they left?

BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 09:30 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:


It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve 
had there in the past.


When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up either 
directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would expect verifiable 
information.


So here we have a chicken-and-egg issue. If there is no CoC (or an insufficient 
one), then people who have been hurt in the past don’t want to participate. You 
need the security of a CoC before it’s safe to come back. It is not up to them 
to prove themselves to you, to verify that they have suffered just for some 
sort of confirmation for you.


Actually they or someone does, if for no other reason then to define 
what hurt is? A good part of the endless discussion has revolved around 
at what point people take offense. Without some actual input from those 
who have felt offended, then the discussion is pretty much useless.




The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the 
immediate confines of a single mail list. Or even the community itself. People 
have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help fixing the 
things over which they left?

BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.


Then speak to details.



Best,

David




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


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Regina Obe]

David,

Again sorry for cutting thread.  I just get the digest.

>> I am especially disgusted by the people behind 
>> http://contributor-covenant.org.  They have done nothing but to silence the 
>> voices of minorities. That's being kind to them.

> Interesting. Got a link for context? I Googled, but saw nothing about 
> controversy or other issues in the first few pages. Maybe I need to dig a 
> little deeper?

Ruby is under heavy threat to adopt this, but they have not yet to my 
knowledge.  Here is the thread:

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004

Reading the thread requires a lot of attention and also face recognition.  So I 
shall point out the actors and actresses in this conversation you should pay 
close attention to:

Coraline Ada -  https://www.patreon.com/coraline?ty=h - Please give money to 
her cause, as it's way more important than the poor folk who work to make 
PostgreSQL better for free and never ask you for a dime

Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene -  
https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200  
https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 
Yes indeed he was very angered at Elia's (key Opal developer) saying gender 
reassignment is wrong for young children, and spending like $50,000 on gender 
reassignment is being out of touch with reality.  Like me saying smokers are 
killing themselves and spending money on 3 packs of cigrarettes a day could be 
better used.

Strand McCutchen - https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/942  (wow what a 
trooper, he's going to help Opal polish off the Contributor Convenant so it's 
in a shape they can accept)


Ruby Creator - Yukihiro Matsumoto
And you must agree after seeing all the evidence that Yukihiro Matsumoto (who 
is not even a white guy) inventor of ruby must be a jerk for not adopting this 
wonderful thing to make people feel welcome and respected.  What awful person 
would not.  How about me?


Let's not forget about Meredith Patterson -  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI53yys3dbA=youtu.be=538  What has 
she done for open source?
Please ignore the two white guys in the talk, they are just white guys with 
white guy opinions.


Thanks,
Regina









-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 17:30, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the 
> immediate confines of a single mail list. Or even the community itself. 
> People have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help 
> fixing the things over which they left?
>
> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.

Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else"
to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable?
Because the only way in which I can see it doesn't align with the
Contributor Covenant is that the CoC doesn't consider someone's
personal opinions, either private or expressed outside the Postgresql
arena, to be the responsibility of the Postgres team.

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/22/2016 03:31 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:


My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ 
language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if 
not an outright violation. But one can argue by another point (“tolerant of 
people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds. So the 
demarcations of right and wrong are too easily subject to debate and further 
disagreement. Less ambiguity and contradiction is required.


You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the 
reason.





Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.


Some of us do not need protection; we are already privileged members of the 
community. Therefor it’s important to spell out whom we aim to protect.



A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.


Sincerely,

JD



--
Command Prompt, Inc.  http://the.postgres.company/
 +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

Fellow PostgreSQLers,

I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this document, 
with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to benefit (only 
exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I missed you). I 
suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os 
behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the level of many women, 
transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this community and 
others, who have. If those people are not speaking up here, I suspect it’s 
because they don’t expect to be heard. A bunch of white guys who run the 
project have decided what it’s gonna be, and mostly cut things out since these 
threads started.

But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people 
who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered what sorts 
of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to 
word them so as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to 
appropriately address issues when they inevitably arise, so that people 
continue to feel safe.

So I’d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I propose 
that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have already put into this, 
and simply:

* Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, Rails, 
and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor Covenant, unmodified.

  http://contributor-covenant.org

* Put this document in the root directory of the project as CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, 
so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It should also be listed on the 
main web site and referenced from appropriate places (such as the mail lists 
pages).

* Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a separate 
document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The reporting address should be 
included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links to a number of 
existing guides we ought to crib from.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Rajeev Bhatta]

On Friday 22 January 2016 10:55 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

Fellow PostgreSQLers,

I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this document, 
with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to benefit (only 
exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I missed you). I 
suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os 
behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the level of many women, 
transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this community and 
others, who have. If those people are not speaking up here, I suspect it’s 
because they don’t expect to be heard. A bunch of white guys who run the 
project have decided what it’s gonna be, and mostly cut things out since these 
threads started.

But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people 
who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered what sorts 
of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to 
word them so as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to 
appropriately address issues when they inevitably arise, so that people 
continue to feel safe.

So I’d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I propose 
that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have already put into this, 
and simply:

* Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, Rails, 
and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor Covenant, unmodified.

   http://contributor-covenant.org

* Put this document in the root directory of the project as CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, 
so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It should also be listed on the 
main web site and referenced from appropriate places (such as the mail lists 
pages).

* Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a separate 
document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The reporting address should be 
included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links to a number of 
existing guides we ought to crib from.

Best,

David

Hi David, whatever be the race of the select few who built the CoC, the 
categorization of them as white is inappropriate.. The CoC is meant to 
be allowing free communication across all members of the community 
irrespective of their color, race, sexuality, gender, nationality or for 
that matter whatever their personal viewpoint is.


Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open 
for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying 
someone by anything is inappropriate.


Thanks

Regards
Rajeev


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Brar Piening]

Am 22.01.2016 um 08:00 schrieb Rajeev Bhatta:


I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying someone by 
anything is inappropriate.



Wow!
#3 of current CoC
"When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should 
always assume good intentions."


I can see those intentions and I read the whole text.


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E . Wheeler]

Fellow PostgreSQLers,

I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this document, 
with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to benefit (only 
exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I missed you). I 
suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os 
behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the level of many women, 
transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this community and 
others, who have. If those people are not speaking up here, I suspect it’s 
because they don’t expect to be heard. A bunch of white guys who run the 
project have decided what it’s gonna be, and mostly cut things out since these 
threads started.

But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people 
who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered what sorts 
of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to 
word them so as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to 
appropriately address issues when they inevitably arise, so that people 
continue to feel safe.

So I’d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I propose 
that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have already put into this, 
and simply:

* Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, Rails, 
and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor Covenant, unmodified.

 http://contributor-covenant.org

* Put this document in the root directory of the project as CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, 
so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It should also be listed on the 
main web site and referenced from appropriate places (such as the mail lists 
pages).

* Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a separate 
document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The reporting address should be 
included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links to a number of 
existing guides we ought to crib from.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature