Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

[Jan Danielsson]

On 24/01/16 18:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
[---]
> This is something that I brought up in protest because I believe that it
> is crucial to the growth of this community.

   Do you have any evidence to support this belief?  (Without referring
to an anonymous invisible mass, a single case or unverifiable anecdotal
evidence).

   Without any data/evidence either way I'd wager that the
implementation of a CoC will have exactly zero effect on developers
coming to or going from the project.  If gaining developers is your
motivator for pushing through a CoC, I for one believe it's a waste of
time and energy.

   I don't buy the idea that there's a huge cache of talent waiting in
the dark for open source projects to suddenly implement a CoC, at which
point they'll jump out and suddenly start contributing code.  Though
whatever anecdotal evidence I could produce to support that claim would
be as worthless as anyone else's, so:

   Surely considering the huge number of projects which have adopted
various forms of CoC's over the past months/years there are good numbers
to show if they have a positive effect on contributions?

   I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I suspect you'll find zero
correlation between implementation of CoC's and number of contributions
and/or contributors.


   A wider question to the other participants in this discussion:  Is it
generally an accepted view that the growth of the community (in some
sense) is contingent on the implementation of a CoC?

   /Jan



-- 
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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/26/2016 09:03 AM, Jan Danielsson wrote:

On 24/01/16 18:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote:


Hello,

This thread is deprecated. The CoC Final Draft has been submitted to 
-core for final modification, acceptance or decline.


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] CoC [Final v2]

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

Well done Joshua D. Drake and thank you for the hard work putting up with so 
many comments. 

Hope it is all worth it. 

-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org 
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake
Sent: 26 January 2016 19:01
To: Jan Danielsson; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/26/2016 09:03 AM, Jan Danielsson wrote:
> On 24/01/16 18:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Hello,

This thread is deprecated. The CoC Final Draft has been submitted to -core for 
final modification, acceptance or decline.

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



-- 
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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

Hello,

This thread is deprecated. The CoC Final Draft has been submitted to 
-core for final modification, acceptance or decline.


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] CoC [Final v2]

[Brian Dunavant]

>> Participation does not need to be limited to copy-editing.  Of all the
>> ways to develop a community CoC, we're engaged in just about the worst
>> possible one right now.
>
> so what would be a better way of developing this ?

Of interesting note, the Ruby community is currently considering
switching to a CoC inspired directly from this draft of a Postgres
CoC.   The extremely long conversation can be viewed at:

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


-- 
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] CoC [Final v2]

[John R Pierce]

On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, Brian Dunavant wrote:

Of interesting note, the Ruby community is currently considering
switching to a CoC inspired directly from this draft of a Postgres
CoC.   The extremely long conversation can be viewed at:

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



again, people there are bringing up the 'feel safe' thing.Noone can 
help how people feel, feelings are highly subjective.   Some people feel 
threatened by a fur coat on a random passerby, or by a woman not covered 
head to toe in a burka.   I know people who don't feel safe unless they 
are carrying a loaded gun, yet random strangers carrying guns make ME 
feel very unsafe.


I'm just a postgresql user who occasionally contributes to this and 
other mail lists, so my 'vote' on this has very little weight, but I 
want to again state, in my personal opinion, IF PGDG adopts a CoC, it 
should be as simple, terse, and generic as possible.   As soon as you 
start enumerating possible social injustices you are on a very slippery 
slope.   Next thing you know, you'll need courts, lawyers, hearings, 
legislature, and are reinventing 'government', and you end up with more 
overhead than actual code contributors.


meanderings, only indirectly related to this...

On the centos email list, some people were bashing gnome3 (probably for 
good reasons).  I looked up the gnome project (mostly, read the 
wikipedia entries relating to it, also a few recent blogs by core 
developers).  Gnome started as a 2-man volunteer project, grew, had a 
mission to develop a complete desktop environment unencumbered by close 
source licensing issues that KDE's QT had(past tense), and by Gnome 2 
had largely succeeded in these goals.Now Gnome has a 'Project' (with 
hierarchical management) and a 'Foundation' (with hierarchical 
management) , and the last 'Foundation' chair was more interested in 
organizing Outreachy, a 'outreach group for women in free software' 
promotional group (a fine thing but completely unrelated to gnome), and 
the gnome core developers are quitting right and left for lack of a firm 
direction or mission, and lack of resources.   Everyone, including many 
of those developers, are unhappy with gnome 3, but have no idea how to 
fix it.


Over my long and checkered career in computer software, I've worked for 
several startups where the founder was a brilliant technical person with 
no business sense...  when the business got too big for them, they 
allowed money people to install 'business people' as CEOs and stuff, 
these business people had no clue how software development operated and 
tried to treat it like whatever industry they'd come from (one CEO was a 
former PepsiCo VP!   He top-loaded the place with MBA yes-men and 
Marketing).   The founder withdrew into his own bubble off working on 
pet projects, and the company floundered around for a few more years, 
then crashed and burned.



--
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] CoC [Final v2]

[Chris Travers]

Just to respond to Josh's previous question:

Yes, I ike the current code of conduct.  Much prefer to the alternatives
offered aimed at "feeling safe" (for the reason that keeping the peace in a
culturally diverse community will not allow people that luxury all the
time).

I am not convinced we need one, and I am worried about those who may be
moved by recent events to require one.  But I think a statement of some
kind by the core committee regarding a productive environment for all is a
good thing and this CoC fits that bill

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This thread is deprecated. The CoC Final Draft has been submitted to -core
> for final modification, acceptance or decline.
>
> 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
>



-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

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

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

[Chris Travers]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Joshua D. Drake 
wrote:

> On 01/23/2016 04:00 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>
>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
>> wrote:
>>
>> This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,
>>> productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to
>>> contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative
>>> space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as
>>> mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).
>>>
>>
>> We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the
>> community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers.
>>
>
> The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let
> whatever space they are in and the requirements of that space dictate the
> response to their behaviour.


Additionally, "if you are harassed, maybe you should consult a lawyer" is
not a bad option.


>
>
>
>> * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.
>>>
>>
>> This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just
>> expressing an opposing view!”).
>>
>
> Can you provide an example of said behaviour that does not also violate
> the below?


What is abusive?  And doesn't any formulation provide cover for arguably
abusive behavior?



>
>
>> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
>>> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
>>>
>>> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
>>> should always assume good intentions.
>>>
>>
>> This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should
>> recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”).
>>
>
> Yes it can and then when they are corrected, if they continue, the below
> kicks in.
>
>
>> * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be
>>> tolerated.
>>>
>>
>> Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.
>>
>
> Yes but as mentioned earlier, first comes the CoC, then comes the
> enforcement policy.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>> Best,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

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

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

[Christophe Pettus]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:15 PM, "Joshua D. Drake"  wrote:

> Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will come up 
> with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval. -core will then 
> also define how they want implement it (or even turn us down). We are just 
> doing some of the hard work for them so that they see what the community and 
> majority of contributors come up with.

I think that it is the understatement of the year (to date) to say that 
consensus is not emerging here.  Worse yet, it is causing huge rifts in the 
community while not resulting in an agreed-to product.

I am pro-CoC, but without a documented enforcement and resolution mechanism, we 
might as well just add "be excellent to each other" on postgresql.org and be 
done with it.

I'd suggest that -core take over from this point, and decide on a full package, 
rather than continuing this process here in -general.

--
-- Christophe Pettus
   x...@thebuild.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] CoC [Final v2]

[John R Pierce]

On 1/24/2016 2:51 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:

I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this 
point, let the high passions moderate a bit, and talk about the process.  That 
is the detail in which the devils will live.



Oh,   save us from that.my original quoting of 
Warren Zevon's Lawyers Guns and Money goes double for 'the process'.


--
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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 02:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:


How do you define “in the Pg community”? Is it someone who has posted to a 
known forum at least once? Someone who has been to a conference? What if they 
have never participated in a community forum, but use PostgreSQL at work? Maybe 
they would eventually submit a bug report or ask a question. How do you gauge 
that?

Me, I don’t think you can. If someone reports abusive behavior by a member of 
the Pg community, it should not matter whether or not the person doing the 
reporting is a member of the community, only that the reported abuser is.


If it can't be defined it can't be enforced. That said, an abuser or 
harasser generally has a horrible tendency to do it more than once. If 
it happens here, the CoC will apply.


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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 02:41 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:


On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:


== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==


What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution 
mechanism.  If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do they talk to?  
How does that person or entity resolve things?  What confidentiality promises 
are made?


Discussed previously. That is to be resolved once the CoC is complete.

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] CoC [Final v2]

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:

> In retrospect I revoke my support of this idea entirely. It just isn't our 
> jurisdiction. If doesn't happen in our yard then it isn't our business.

Then know that the current draft of the CoC is easily interpreted as giving 
shelter to abusers.

> I would also note that this document isn't going to be the end all of 
> enforcement. Ultimately -core has the final say. -Core can determine on its 
> own if it wants to enforce against a particular community member (with or 
> without the CoC).

Yep. And as Chrisophe pointed out, none of it will mean anything without an 
explicit and enforced policy for dealing with violations.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 02:59 PM, Chris Travers wrote:


But I will be crystal clear on my (deeply political ;-) viewpoint here:
I do not want to see the PostgreSQL community get hijacked by groups
that want to push Western values on the rest of the world.  I want to
see us come together and build one heck of an economic commons that is
usable by and reasonably welcoming to all without regard to, say,
political or philosophical inclinations.

I think that's what we all want.  Or it is what I hope we want.


I agree with you completely. The "reasonably considered" is a little 
tough but keep in mind that the idea here is that the "reasonably 
considered" is determined by committee, whether -core or another one. It 
isn't going to be a dictator.


I want to thank you for your feedback on this topic. It has been very 
helpful. Is there anything else you see within the context of the 
existing CoC Final Draft that you do not like or would like to see changed?


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] CoC [Final v2]

[Christophe Pettus]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:09 PM, John R Pierce  wrote:
> so what would be a better way of developing this ?

This needs to come from -core, and then commented on as a complete policy, not 
just CoC with maybe enforcement provisions later.  Not because we're a 
dictatorship, but if they are going to be the ones responsible for handling 
complaints, they need to be 100% bought into it.  A CoC with no enforcement 
mechanism is pointless.  If there's no mandate from -core to have a CoC, this 
is just pantomime.

Let's say I arrive a -general with a proposal that PG 9.7 should speak the 
MongoDB wire protocol in addition to v3, complete with some working code.  The 
comments on -general come down to:

1. A large number of people saying I am insane.
2. A smaller number of people saying, "Yes, but which version?"
3. A large number of people saying, "No, it should speak MySQL's protocol 
instead."

I can't claim that, on the basis of #2, there's "consensus" that the feature is 
a good idea and should be refined and committed, but that's precisely what I 
see happening here.

In any event, the tone of this particular discussion has gotten so out of 
control (basically, people are being told to shut up left and right), that I 
don't see a consensus is possible right now.

--
-- Christophe Pettus
  x...@thebuild.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] CoC [Final v2]

[Christophe Pettus]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:

> You are wrong and the fact that we have gone from a motion style, to a story 
> style, to a continually and incrementally improving draft proves it. This is 
> the largest feature the community has tried to design and implement. It is 
> going to take a little time.

"The document has changed" is not a consensus emerging.  A significant portion 
of the participants don't want a CoC at all, and they are feeling ignored.  A 
significant portion of the participants don't want this CoC, because they feel 
it's not strong enough, and they're feeling ignored.  Those two parties are not 
trivial; in fact, they make up most of the people who are commenting right now.

> This shouldn't cause any rifts.

And, yet, it is.

> If you don't want to constructively participate in the development of this 
> feature, nobody is asking you to.

Participation does not need to be limited to copy-editing.  Of all the ways to 
develop a community CoC, we're engaged in just about the worst possible one 
right now.

--
-- Christophe Pettus
  x...@thebuild.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] CoC [Final v2]

[John R Pierce]

On 1/24/2016 5:52 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:

Participation does not need to be limited to copy-editing.  Of all the ways to 
develop a community CoC, we're engaged in just about the worst possible one 
right now.


so what would be a better way of developing this ?



--
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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 02:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:


1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails community 
to deal with it.

2. If person B is in the Pg community they can request help.

I am open to wording on #2. I tried a couple of times but had trouble not 
making it a larger declaration that I think it needs to be.


How do you define “in the Pg community”? Is it someone who has posted to a 
known forum at least once? Someone who has been to a conference? What if they 
have never participated in a community forum, but use PostgreSQL at work? Maybe 
they would eventually submit a bug report or ask a question. How do you gauge 
that?

Me, I don’t think you can. If someone reports abusive behavior by a member of 
the Pg community, it should not matter whether or not the person doing the 
reporting is a member of the community, only that the reported abuser is.


In retrospect I revoke my support of this idea entirely. It just isn't 
our jurisdiction. If doesn't happen in our yard then it isn't our business.


I would also note that this document isn't going to be the end all of 
enforcement. Ultimately -core has the final say. -Core can determine on 
its own if it wants to enforce against a particular community member 
(with or without the CoC).


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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 05:20 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:


On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:15 PM, "Joshua D. Drake"  wrote:


Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will come up 
with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval. -core will then 
also define how they want implement it (or even turn us down). We are just 
doing some of the hard work for them so that they see what the community and 
majority of contributors come up with.


I think that it is the understatement of the year (to date) to say that 
consensus is not emerging here.  Worse yet,


You are wrong and the fact that we have gone from a motion style, to a 
story style, to a continually and incrementally improving draft proves 
it. This is the largest feature the community has tried to design and 
implement. It is going to take a little time.


I don't see anyone rushing to commit or roll back other features.



it is causing huge rifts in the community while not resulting in an agreed-to 
product.



This shouldn't cause any rifts. The community evolves. 10 years ago 
nobody would even think of having a CoC. Did the community change? No, 
the new people coming in had different requirements. Those people want a 
CoC, they feel better when it is there.


If you don't want to constructively participate in the development of 
this feature, nobody is asking you to. We are all volunteers. You are 
welcome to not read another email on this thread and just wait for 
whatever -core inevitably decides.


If -Core would like to step up and take this over now, by all means. 
However, I think they are hoping that we are all adult enough to figure 
this mess out ourselves so they can commit it.


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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 02:51 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:


On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, "David E. Wheeler"  wrote:


I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked.


I think those need to put in place at the same time.  It's very hard to judge 
how good or bad a CoC is absent a reporting mechanism.

I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this 
point, let the high passions moderate a bit, and talk about the process.  That 
is the detail in which the devils will live.


Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will 
come up with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval. 
-core will then also define how they want implement it (or even turn us 
down). We are just doing some of the hard work for them so that they see 
what the community and majority of contributors come up with.


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] CoC [Final v2]

[S McGraw]

On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:
> I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add
> these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?
> 
>> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org 
>> [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler 
>> Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01
>> We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made
>> outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor
>> to abusers. [...]

As I wrote previously, not "everybody" is happy with that proposal.
My opinions and what I do outside the Postgresql community is not 
and should not be an issue for the Postgresql community to act on 
within the Postgresql community.

The result of failing to provide this basic protection for individual 
free speech can be seen in the McCarthyism in the 1950's in the US [*]
With all the open source projects that need help, it would be hard for
me to want to help ones that promote a return to that kind of vicious
and harmful philosophy, no matter which end of the political spectrum 
it occurs at.

[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism


-- 
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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 09:39 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:

Sarcasm is not productive.


Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the
first paragraph, but not the second :p

The most significant problem I see with the Contributor Covenant
(other than my personal feeling that Postgres shouldn't have anything
to do members' lives outside the community, but that's just my
opinion) is the potential for legal wranglings that would ensue. Just
being in a position to say "we know what legal problems there are",
let alone being able to say "we know that we are covered against any
potential legal issues" would be prohibitively expensive.


This thread is not about the Contributor Covenant. This thread is about 
working the CoC that this community is already progressing through. It 
is already clear that primary contributors in this community do not want 
something as politically charged as the Contributor Covenant.


At its core, PostgreSQL is a practical community, not a political one. 
That is why the CoC we are working on is practical, succinct and to the 
point.


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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 09:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:

If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to
be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.


And as for being not helpful, I was being helpful and my helpful and
reasoned points were ignored because they simply didn't want to hear
them. My current attitude is a direct consequence of theirs.


I would ask that you not make this about yourself. We are here to 
discuss the CoC. If you don't have productive statements to be made 
specifically about this text, please move on.


== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==

This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, 
productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to 
contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative 
space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as 
mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).


* Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

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

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

* Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be 
tolerated.





--
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] CoC [Final v2]

[Chris Travers]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:52 PM, S McGraw  wrote:

> On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:
> > I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add
> > these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?
> >
> >> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:
> pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler Sent:
> 24 January 2016 00:01
> >> We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made
> >> outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor
> >> to abusers. [...]
>
> As I wrote previously, not "everybody" is happy with that proposal.
> My opinions and what I do outside the Postgresql community is not
> and should not be an issue for the Postgresql community to act on
> within the Postgresql community.
>
> The result of failing to provide this basic protection for individual
> free speech can be seen in the McCarthyism in the 1950's in the US [*]
> With all the open source projects that need help, it would be hard for
> me to want to help ones that promote a return to that kind of vicious
> and harmful philosophy, no matter which end of the political spectrum
> it occurs at.
>
> [*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism


If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:

* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any political
question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we support).  We
expect communication in community fora to respect this need.  The community
is neither competent nor interested in resolving more general social or
political questions.

In my view this establishes inclusiveness and pluralism by simply saying we
aren't interested in the rest of the question.

>
>
>
> --
> 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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 02:34 AM, Chris Travers wrote:


We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made
outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe
harbor to abusers.


The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let
whatever space they are in and the requirements of that space
dictate the response to their behaviour.


Additionally, "if you are harassed, maybe you should consult a lawyer"
is not a bad option.


I think that would be covered under support documents. Certainly we 
could have a page that has lots of discussion points about things people 
can do under these circumstances, but that doesn't belong in the CoC proper.



This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I
was just expressing an opposing view!”).


Can you provide an example of said behaviour that does not also
violate the below?


What is abusive?  And doesn't any formulation provide cover for arguably
abusive behavior?


It is rather impossible to be abusive and have it not be a personal 
attack or use of disparaging words.



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



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] CoC [Final v2]

[Geoff Winkless]

On 24 January 2016 at 17:34, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:
> That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when
> -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That position
> was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community doesn't
> care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian conference to
> have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all people to feel
> welcome.

Apart from those people who think that topless dancers are fine? But
who cares about them, cos they're just unreconstructed bigots, right?

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] CoC [Final v2]

[Geoff Winkless]

On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:
> Sarcasm is not productive.

Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the
first paragraph, but not the second :p

The most significant problem I see with the Contributor Covenant
(other than my personal feeling that Postgres shouldn't have anything
to do members' lives outside the community, but that's just my
opinion) is the potential for legal wranglings that would ensue. Just
being in a position to say "we know what legal problems there are",
let alone being able to say "we know that we are covered against any
potential legal issues" would be prohibitively expensive.

If someone's prepared to put themselves in a position to overcome that
issue then it's just an argument over points of view, really.

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] CoC [Final v2]

[Geoff Winkless]

On 24 January 2016 at 14:53, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
 wrote:
> I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.
>
> Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

Sure, why not? Forget that at least 50% (I'm being generous) of the
contributors to the thread disagree, we'll just do what you want
because you're jumping on every thread and forcing your opinion on the
list.

We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that
you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come
about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to
pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it
actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or
you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter
what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or
against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities
and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC.

I'm sure that'll be fine, yes?

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] CoC [Final v2]

[Chris Travers]

I don't agree that this should be about anything more than protecting the
commons.

I also do not want to see the PostgreSQL community pushed into taking
stands on political causes because of people arguing about what viewpoints
are more privileged than others.

I think the CoC is good as it stands.

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 3:53 PM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <
farjad.fa...@checknetworks.com> wrote:

> I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.
>
> Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?
>
> Thank you.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:
> pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler
> Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01
> To: Josh Drake
> Cc: Psql_General (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> > This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,
> productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to
> contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative
> space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as
> mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).
>
> We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the
> community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers.
>
> > * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.
>
> This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just
> expressing an opposing view!”).
>
> > * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
> > of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
> >
> > * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> > should always assume good intentions.
>
> This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should
> recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”).
>
> > * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be
> tolerated.
>
> Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.
>
> 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
>



-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

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

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 07:36 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:


We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that
you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come
about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to
pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it
actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or
you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter
what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or
against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities
and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC.

I'm sure that'll be fine, yes?


Enough.

Sarcasm is not productive.

This is a difficult topic. A good portion of this community doesn't want 
a CoC at all. A good portion are upset with me for even bringing it up. 
This is something that I brought up in protest because I believe that it 
is crucial to the growth of this community. Remember that I don't want 
one either but sometimes we do things we don't want to do. We still do 
them in a professional and productive way because that is who we are.


If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going 
to be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.


Do not turn our community into a SJW fight. We are better than that.

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] CoC [Final v2]

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. 

Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

Thank you.

-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org 
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler
Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01
To: Josh Drake
Cc: Psql_General (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, 
> productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to 
> contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative 
> space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as 
> mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the 
community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers.

> * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just 
expressing an opposing view!”).

> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
> 
> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> should always assume good intentions.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should 
recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”).

> * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be 
> tolerated.

Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.

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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:


If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:

* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect this
need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
more general social or political questions.


That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is 
when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That 
position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community 
doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian 
conference to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all 
people to feel welcome.


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] CoC [Final v2]

[Geoff Winkless]

On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:
> If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to
> be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.

And as for being not helpful, I was being helpful and my helpful and
reasoned points were ignored because they simply didn't want to hear
them. My current attitude is a direct consequence of theirs.

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] CoC [Final v2]

[Chris Travers]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
wrote:

> On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
> If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:
>>
>> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
>> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
>> support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect this
>> need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
>> more general social or political questions.
>>
>
> That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when
> -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That
> position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community
> doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian
> conference to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all
> people to feel welcome.
>

I don't know that this is really a political resolution though (aside from
being the politics of community governance).I don't see the PostgreSQL
core committee taking a position on the question of topless dancing, just
that it would be inappropriate for some participants and therefore
unwelcome.  And that is position is reasonable.

So trying a slightly better wording:


> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
> support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect this
> need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
> more general social or political questions.  Nonetheless the core team
> does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where all people, regardless
> of background feel generally welcome.
>

I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too.

Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make
a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic.  Would that be
off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization?

The point then is just to note that PostgreSQL is not a political community
and has no intention of becoming one, but that one aspect here is to keep
the peace so to speak.



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



-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

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

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

[Regina Obe]

Josh,

Two changes I would like to the Coc as it stands:

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

Change the word "must" to "try to".  
You yourself said some people have called you sexist and against obese people 
because of some statements you made. 
They would say you did not ensure your language was free of personal attacks.  
Only bystanders can judge.



>> On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

>> If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:
>>
>> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any 
>> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we 
>> support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect this 
>> need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving 
>> more general social or political questions.

> That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when 
> -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. 
> That position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community 
> doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian conference 
> to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all people to feel 
> welcome.

> Sincerely,

> JD

I would add another bullet:

* Participants try to look out for the well-being of each other. 
If a participant feels strongly that someone is being unfairly treated or 
ignored, 
then they are encouraged to speak up about it.


The reason for this last bullet is like in the example you said - if a woman 
says having topless dancers is wrong, then she could be viewed as a humorless 
feminist.
If a man says it, it carries more weight.  So in this case, a man is better 
able to defend the concerns of a woman.

Similarly if I see a man being harassed by a woman, my voice as a woman carries 
more weight than a guy making the same exact statement 
or trying to defend himself.

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] CoC [Final v2]

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

Geoff and all,

I only seconded Dave's point which has been raised several times. 

Here what he had written

Original point
> * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

Dave wrote
>This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just 
>expressing an opposing view!”).


If 50% disagree that this can happen then fine. I will go with the majority. 

But let's finalise this thread and move on. 




-Original Message-
From: gwinkl...@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff 
Winkless
Sent: 24 January 2016 15:37
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet); Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 24 January 2016 at 14:53, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) 
<farjad.fa...@checknetworks.com> wrote:
> I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.
>
> Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

Sure, why not? Forget that at least 50% (I'm being generous) of the 
contributors to the thread disagree, we'll just do what you want because you're 
jumping on every thread and forcing your opinion on the list.

We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that you will 
provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come about as a result, in 
all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to pay the legal fees for lawyers 
(your own and ours) to ensure that it actually does that and that you either 
have the funds to cover it or you're paying for indemnity insurance that does 
cover it (no matter what happens or including whether the action is on behalf 
of or against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities and 
responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC.

I'm sure that'll be fine, yes?

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] CoC [Final v2]

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

Joshua for the record I am not upset about raising this issue. 

However I am concerned that it is becoming counter-productive. 

It is taking too much time away from the real work and aim of this forum. 

Otherwise it is necessary. 



-Original Message-
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:j...@commandprompt.com] 
Sent: 24 January 2016 17:31
To: Geoff Winkless; FarjadFarid(ChkNet); Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 07:36 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

> We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that 
> you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come 
> about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to 
> pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it 
> actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or 
> you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter 
> what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or 
> against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities 
> and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC.
>
> I'm sure that'll be fine, yes?

Enough.

Sarcasm is not productive.

This is a difficult topic. A good portion of this community doesn't want a CoC 
at all. A good portion are upset with me for even bringing it up. 
This is something that I brought up in protest because I believe that it is 
crucial to the growth of this community. Remember that I don't want one either 
but sometimes we do things we don't want to do. We still do them in a 
professional and productive way because that is who we are.

If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to be 
sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.

Do not turn our community into a SJW fight. We are better than that.

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] CoC [Final v2]

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Chris Travers  wrote:

>> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
>> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
>> support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect this
>> need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
>> more general social or political questions.  Nonetheless the core team  does 
>> make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where all people, regardless of 
>> background feel generally welcome.
> 
> I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too.

Alas, no, as it does not address abuse.

> Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make a 
> speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic.  Would that be 
> off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization?

If they make hateful statements about members of the community, or to 
interested parties who then report them to the community, then yes. Otherwise, 
we’re saying we’re okay with abuse of any kind as long as it’s not on our turf. 
It’s not politics, it’s hate.

Best,

David

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 02:14 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:


Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make a 
speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic.  Would that be 
off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization?


If they make hateful statements about members of the community, or to 
interested parties who then report them to the community, then yes. Otherwise, 
we’re saying we’re okay with abuse of any kind as long as it’s not on our turf. 
It’s not politics, it’s hate.


O.k. now I am starting to see your point. For example:

Pg person A is harassing person B in the Rails community.

How do we deal with that?

1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails 
community to deal with it.


2. If person B is in the Pg community they can request help.

I am open to wording on #2. I tried a couple of times but had trouble 
not making it a larger declaration that I think it needs to be.


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] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/24/2016 11:28 AM, Chris Travers wrote:


That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example
is when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian
conference. That position was taken without consideration that at a
lot of this community doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the
right for the Russian conference to have those dancers. It was done
so because -core wants all people to feel welcome.


I don't know that this is really a political resolution though (aside
from being the politics of community governance).I don't see the
PostgreSQL core committee taking a position on the question of topless
dancing, just that it would be inappropriate for some participants and
therefore unwelcome.  And that is position is reasonable.


It is political in the sense of what is considered acceptable. A better 
term than I used is probably controversial. The reality is, a lot of 
society doesn't have a problem with topless dancers, nudity or porn. 
There are some that think that it manipulates and abuses women. There 
are others that think they have a right to an opinion on what these 
women chose to do. There are some who are trying to do the right thing 
but don't know quite how to go about it. Every one of them think they 
are right.




So trying a slightly better wording:


* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect this
need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
more general social or political questions.  Nonetheless the core
team  does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where all
people, regardless of background feel generally welcome.


Your wording boils down to:


* The community is neither competent nor interested in resolvingmore 
general social or political questions.


But in fact, we are. We have influence and the ability to exert that 
influence (again -core and the Russian dancers). Further we are people 
and people have opinions.


They key here is to accept that and enforce that acceptance on those 
what won't. That is why the CoC exists.




I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too.

Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to
make a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic.  Would
that be off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an
organization?


No. Nor does the CoC state that it would be.



The point then is just to note that PostgreSQL is not a political
community and has no intention of becoming one, but that one aspect here
is to keep the peace so to speak.


Good. I believe this point is solved quite clearly here:

* The community is not interested in resolving more general social or 
political questions.


“Don't use a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent word will do.” Mark Twain.

I believe the existing CoC solves that without the added wording above 
but I am certainly willing to listen if others disagree. Consider that 
if anyone started spouting political views (which rarely happens within 
this community anyway) that the existing community rules (regardless of 
CoC) would apply. It would become off-topic.


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] CoC [Final v2]

[S McGraw]

On 01/24/2016 12:28 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> > wrote: On
> 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> 
> If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:
> 
> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any 
> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which
> we support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect
> this need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in
> resolving more general social or political questions.
> 
> That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is
> when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference.
> That position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this
> community doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the
> Russian conference to have those dancers. It was done so because
> -core wants all people to feel welcome.
> 
> I don't know that this is really a political resolution though (aside
> from being the politics of community governance).I don't see the
> PostgreSQL core committee taking a position on the question of
> topless dancing, just that it would be inappropriate for some
> participants and therefore unwelcome.  And that is position is
> reasonable.
> 
> So trying a slightly better wording:
> 
> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any 
> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which 
> we support). We expect communication in community fora to respect 
> this need. The community is neither competent nor interested in 
> resolving more general social or political questions. Nonetheless
> the core team does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where
> all people, regardless of background feel generally welcome.

I too strongly think the CoC needs something like this.  But two nits:

1) I don't understand what you mean by

 > ...aside from its usage in the public sector (which we support)

2) I don't think "neither competent nor interested" sounds right. 
 a) Nobody is "competent" in the sense of an engineering problem.
These issues are "solved" by one side gathering sufficient
political support to impose their solution on the other 
(sometimes for better, sometimes for worse).  
 b) While the "community as some sort of abstract entity may not be
"interested", many members of that community certainly are...
perhaps sometimes to the detriment of the community's primary
purpose.

Perhaps replacing 

 > The community is neither competent nor interested in
 > resolving more general social or political questions.

with something like

 > Such general social or political questions are often highly
 > divisive particularly given the diverse membership we strive
 > to attract.  

would be better? 



-- 
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] CoC [Final v2]

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:

> O.k. now I am starting to see your point. For example:

o_O

> Pg person A is harassing person B in the Rails community.
> 
> How do we deal with that?
> 
> 1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails 
> community to deal with it.
> 
> 2. If person B is in the Pg community they can request help.
> 
> I am open to wording on #2. I tried a couple of times but had trouble not 
> making it a larger declaration that I think it needs to be.

How do you define “in the Pg community”? Is it someone who has posted to a 
known forum at least once? Someone who has been to a conference? What if they 
have never participated in a community forum, but use PostgreSQL at work? Maybe 
they would eventually submit a bug report or ask a question. How do you gauge 
that?

Me, I don’t think you can. If someone reports abusive behavior by a member of 
the Pg community, it should not matter whether or not the person doing the 
reporting is a member of the community, only that the reported abuser is.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

[Christophe Pettus]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:

> == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==

What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution 
mechanism.  If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do they talk to?  
How does that person or entity resolve things?  What confidentiality promises 
are made?

--
-- Christophe Pettus
   x...@thebuild.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] CoC [Final v2]

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Christophe Pettus  wrote:

> What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution 
> mechanism.  If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do they talk to?  
> How does that person or entity resolve things?  What confidentiality promises 
> are made?

I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked. But it need to be 
put in place at the same time, IME. Otherwise the CoC on its own has no teeth.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

[Christophe Pettus]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, "David E. Wheeler"  wrote:

> I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked.

I think those need to put in place at the same time.  It's very hard to judge 
how good or bad a CoC is absent a reporting mechanism.

I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this 
point, let the high passions moderate a bit, and talk about the process.  That 
is the detail in which the devils will live.
 
--
-- Christophe Pettus
   x...@thebuild.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] CoC [Final v2]

[Chris Travers]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:14 PM, David E. Wheeler 
wrote:

> On Jan 24, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Chris Travers 
> wrote:
>
> >> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
> >> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
> >> support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect this
> >> need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
> >> more general social or political questions.  Nonetheless the core team
> does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where all people, regardless
> of background feel generally welcome.
> >
> > I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too.
>
> Alas, no, as it does not address abuse.
>
> > Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to
> make a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic.  Would
> that be off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an
> organization?
>
> If they make hateful statements about members of the community, or to
> interested parties who then report them to the community, then yes.
> Otherwise, we’re saying we’re okay with abuse of any kind as long as it’s
> not on our turf. It’s not politics, it’s hate.
>

First, I think I see your point.  Person A says something that person B
takes offense to.  Person B writes many irate emails off the list  Person A
complains.  Thats a hard one to address.  Personally I am fine with this
being extended on a case-by-case basis as long as there is a close nexus to
community resources.

However, one thing I am deeply concerned about is defining hate speech in
this case.  "reasonably seen as harassment" is extremely vague.  It could
for example include email signatures displaying political messages someone
takes strong, personal offense to (my example from earlier).  Once you
start down this route, the end result is a PostgreSQL community that has
become a political force beyond things like conventions (as I say, I see
the topless dancer issue as a legitimate community keep-the-peace issue not
one of judging the question of topless dancers generally -- if people want
to go out afterwards to such a place, I would not join, but I dont think
the core community should get involved).  I think that would be a very big
mistake.

I think there is a legitimate need for something like the social justice
clause Josh originally added, but I also see why it was removed.

But I will be crystal clear on my (deeply political ;-) viewpoint here:  I
do not want to see the PostgreSQL community get hijacked by groups that
want to push Western values on the rest of the world.  I want to see us
come together and build one heck of an economic commons that is usable by
and reasonably welcoming to all without regard to, say, political or
philosophical inclinations.

I think that's what we all want.  Or it is what I hope we want.

Best Wishes
Chris Travers

David




-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

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

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/23/2016 04:00 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:


This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, productive, and 
collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute to the PostgreSQL 
community. It applies to all "collaborative space", which is defined as 
community communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit 
comments, etc.).


We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the 
community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers.


The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let 
whatever space they are in and the requirements of that space dictate 
the response to their behaviour.





* Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.


This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just 
expressing an opposing view!”).


Can you provide an example of said behaviour that does not also violate 
the below?





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

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


This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should 
recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”).


Yes it can and then when they are corrected, if they continue, the below 
kicks in.





* Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.


Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.


Yes but as mentioned earlier, first comes the CoC, then comes the 
enforcement policy.


Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



Best,

David




--
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] CoC [Final v2]

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:

> This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, 
> productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to 
> contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative 
> space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as 
> mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the 
community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers.

> * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just 
expressing an opposing view!”).

> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
> 
> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> should always assume good intentions.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should 
recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”).

> * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be 
> tolerated.

Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature