Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Martin Mueller]

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

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

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

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

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

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


-- Stephen

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[Martin Mueller]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, let's look at problem cases:

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

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

Or consider:

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

Which would make the problem more clear.  Whether or not a comment like that 
occurring outside 
postgresql.org
 infrastructure would be considered 

computing z-scores

[Martin Mueller]

You construct a z-score for a set of values by subtracting the average from the 
value and dividing the result by the standard deviation. I know how to do this 
in a two-step procedure. First, I compute the average and standard deviation. 
In a second run I use the formula and apply it to each value. 

Is there a way of doing this in a single-step procedure or can you chain the 
two parts together in one query?  This goes beyond my SQL competence. 

Martin Mueller