Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5, etc., etc., etc., etc., ....

Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 01/13/2016 06:00 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do revision control. Can you people start a github project or something to develope your ideas

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5, etc., etc., etc., etc., ....

Bill Moran wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:10:43 -0500 Tom Lane wrote: Kevin Grittner writes: I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's draft to something that seems more "natural" to me. Minor (or not?) comment: Whether or

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V7

On 01/15/2016 09:03 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: Joshua and all, Because of the current political environment we live in, even though I am neither a Muslim nor a Jew I am a Baha'i, I think we should not discuss religion or politics on this forum. All such topics can be discussed privately.

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V7

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > Because of the current political environment we live in, even though I am > neither a Muslim nor a Jew I am a Baha'i, I think we should not discuss > religion or politics on this forum. All such

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V7

-Original Message- From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake Sent: 15 January 2016 16:03 To: Neil; Psql_General (E-mail) Subject: Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V7 On 01/15/2016 07:41 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > tl

[GENERAL] WIP: CoC V7

tl;dr; * Cleaned up first paragraph, making it more succint * Reworded last bullet a bit == 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

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V7

On 01/15/2016 07:41 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: tl;dr; * Cleaned up first paragraph, making it more succint * Reworded last bullet a bit == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) == This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5, etc., etc., etc., etc., ....

On 01/14/2016 08:24 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 01/13/2016 06:00 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do revision control. Can you people start a github project or something

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

tl;dr; * added being tolerant of opposing views == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) == This document is intended to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in a safe,

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/14/2016 09:11 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 01/14/2016 08:53 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake wrote: If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues a position, they should not be demonized or punished

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/14/2016 09:14 AM, Neil wrote: The community needs to decide between the following: 1. Does it want to eliminate participation from people with strong but opposing views. or 2. Does it want to enforce respect and tolerance that allows people with strong but opposing views to

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/14/2016 09:53 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues >> a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that. I am not a contributor to

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 14 January 2016 at 17:11, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Right but here is the rub. Being anti-gay marriage isn't an extreme opinion. > It is a minority opinion for sure but it is certainly not extreme. Well it is - it's an extremity in the range of potential view points. >

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5, etc., etc., etc., etc., ....

On 01/14/2016 08:30 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: On 01/14/2016 08:24 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 01/13/2016 06:00 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do revision control. Can

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues > a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that. I completely agree with you, unfortunately there are enough people who are so

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5, etc., etc., etc., etc., ....

On 01/13/2016 06:00 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do revision control. Can you people start a github project or something to develope your ideas and come back when you

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/14/2016 08:53 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake wrote: If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that. I completely agree with you,

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

> On Jan 14, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Now, how does this apply (as an example)? There are very loud people in this > community who are pro-gay marriage and they are unable to respect those who > don't agree with the position. There are also those

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Updated. > > Tl;dr; > > * Removed excess wording > * Removed non-.org controlled spaces in first paragraph > * Added explicit discussion on explicit problem with last paragraph of > Kevin's last version. > > ==

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V6

Please see my two suggestions below. Steve - Original Message - From: "Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> To: "Neil" <n...@fairwindsoft.com>; "Psql_General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Thursday, January 14,

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

Updated. Tl;dr; * Removed excess wording * Removed non-.org controlled spaces in first paragraph * Added explicit discussion on explicit problem with last paragraph of Kevin's last version. == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) == This document is intended to provide community

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V6

Hello, I posted this earlier but ended up breaking my own silly rev scheme. So, I am going back to my silly rev scheme. Rev 6 it is: tl;dr; * added being tolerant of opposing views * Removed excess wording from Grittner's version * Removed non-.org controlled spaces in first paragraph ==

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

This looks much better than earlier editions. I think this one I could avoid violating without too much trouble. When we talk about community commons, does that include physical spaces? I'm trying to visualize what "safe" means in a virtual space and I'm drawing a blank picture.

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 13 January 2016 at 03:10, Tom Lane wrote: > The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid > technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, and > Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points. "Of any > kind"

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 13 January 2016 at 13:05, Regina Obe wrote: >> Perhaps you could add something about valuing contributions from and making >> allowances for those with less expertise. > > I agree it's hard to even talk about just technical without hurting someone's > feelings, I don't

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Regina Obe wrote: > > > On 13 January 2016 at 03:10, Tom Lane wrote: > >> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid > >> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, > >> and

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

> On 13 January 2016 at 03:10, Tom Lane wrote: >> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid >> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, >> and Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points. >> "Of

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 13 January 2016 at 13:55, Chris Travers wrote: > People *can* take offense when you say their code is not good enough, > particularly when it is true, Well I would hope that you wouldn't say so if it wasn't. :) My point is that most people won't be posting code here

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:15:45 -0500 "Regina Obe" wrote: > For example if Tom makes some snide remark like "Do all Bostonians > program this way?" Why not simply discuss the code, with no value judgment about the coder? "The strcpy() in the foo() function can cause intermittent

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

Steve Litt writes: > To me it's simple... > Disallow "You " > Disallow "Your code " > Encourage "It would be better if your code because > ." That's fine as practice, but I don't think we want to get anywhere near being that detailed in the CoC per se. If we start

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/13/2016 01:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Steve Litt writes: To me it's simple... Disallow "You " Disallow "Your code " Encourage "It would be better if your code because ." That's fine as practice, but I don't think we want to get anywhere near being that detailed

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/12/2016 07:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Kevin Grittner writes: >>> * To maintain a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative >>> environment all participants must ensure that their

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

Kevin Grittner writes: > I still feel it is more productive to discuss a proposed document > than proposed language for some "motion to adopt". Agreed. We're trying to write a document, not a document about a document. > ... It applies > to all "collaborative space", which

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

> On 13 January 2016 at 03:10, Tom Lane > wrote: >> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid >> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, >> and Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

ute personal attacks. I don't know. Thanks, Regina From: Regina Obe [mailto:l...@pcorp.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:08 AM To: 'Chris Travers' <chris.trav...@gmail.com> Cc: 'Geoff Winkless' <pgsqlad...@geoff.dj>; 'Psql_General (E-mail)' <pgsql-general@postgre

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 13 January 2016 at 14:15, Regina Obe wrote: > He can also make fun of my tabbing style and say "What's wrong with your > editor? Perhaps you need to use a different one or change the settings" You're right, what we've really been missing all these years is an editor flamewar

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

rt to work out issues. > > > > > Thanks, > > Regina > > > > *From:* Regina Obe [mailto:l...@pcorp.us] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:08 AM > *To:* 'Chris Travers' <chris.trav...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* 'Geoff Winkless' <pgsqlad...@geoff.dj>; 'Psq

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/13/2016 08:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote: My general reaction to the rest of this is that it's got the right idea, but it could be cut to about half the length and be better off for that. Short and sweet is the way, IMO. +1 Less words, more point. -- Command Prompt, Inc. -

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

The small problem with your version, Joshua, is that the appropriate action is not specified. Sorry to jump in in the middle. I have not read the comments fully. Elein Mustain el...@varlena.com > On Jan 12, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> On

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

Elein writes: > The small problem with your version, Joshua, is that the appropriate action > is not specified. I think at this point we're just trying to agree on a statement as to what actions are acceptable or not. After that we can get into what is the enforcement

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

Still trying the Danish "Make Love not Codes" approach (Love being the plural of the Danish Lov meaning law). 1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in a safe,

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/12/2016 07:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Kevin Grittner writes: I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's draft to something that seems more "natural" to me. Minor (or not?) comment: * To maintain a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

Kevin Grittner writes: > I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's > draft to something that seems more "natural" to me. Minor (or not?) comment: > * To maintain a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative > environment all participants must

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/12/2016 07:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Joshua D. Drake" writes: On 01/12/2016 02:43 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: To me, this reads more like the document itself. I hope I have done justice to Josh's points as well as Tom's, although I would bet there are a number of

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/12/2016 06:41 PM, Elein wrote: The small problem with your version, Joshua, is that the appropriate action is not specified. Sorry to jump in in the middle. I have not read the comments fully. It is all good Elein. The lack of appropriate action is purposeful. The idea is that we

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/12/2016 06:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Elein writes: The small problem with your version, Joshua, is that the appropriate action is not specified. I think at this point we're just trying to agree on a statement as to what actions are acceptable or not. After that we can

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:10:43 -0500 Tom Lane wrote: > Kevin Grittner writes: > > I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's > > draft to something that seems more "natural" to me. > > Minor (or not?) comment: > > > * To maintain a

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

"Joshua D. Drake" writes: > On 01/12/2016 02:43 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> To me, this reads more like the document itself. I hope I have >> done justice to Josh's points as well as Tom's, although I would >> bet there are a number of people on the list that can improve

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V2

Josh, > tl;dr; > * Modified #2 to be less harsh. > * Modified #3 with TGL and James comments > * Did not remove examples as I believe they are vital to the success > I saw Regina's post, I believe it is good for context but I also believe that > something concise and to the point is the better

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V3

Sorry. I just saw the reference to this in the related thread. On Jan 11, 2016 7:01 PM, "Andy Chambers" wrote: > Any reason not to just adopt the contributor covenant? > > http://contributor-covenant.org/ > tl;dr; > > * Removed #6 (Social Justice) > > PostgreSQL Global

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

>> That has nothing to do with the Code of Conduct, though. >> The community accepting Tom saying "no" to Feature X is >> vastly different than the community not calling Tom out >> for being mean. >> The CoC is about the later situation and not the prior; >> and the community should call Tom out.

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> If the attacker goes public, we point people at the exchange that happened > where Tom has presumably already discussed the reasons that the > patch/feature/ isn't being accepted. If someone wanted to out someone, they would study them carefully. They would find Tom's buttons and push

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

Wow. I mean actually wow. So many things. Just so many. You still haven't explained why core contributors need to be treated like special snowflakes. If someone acts inappropriately then they should be told so, regardless of status. Why should we protect anyone in the wrong? Moreover, your

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

On 01/12/2016 08:17 AM, Neil Tiffin wrote: On Jan 12, 2016, at 12:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: [ just a few comments on specific points ] "Greg Sabino Mullane" writes: 2. The CoC is not about being offended. The act of being offended is purely a recipient

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V4

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Tl;dr; > > * Removed specific examples and reworded #3 to be more concise > > PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC): > > 1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V4

On 01/12/2016 12:16 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: 4. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists, IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be construed as a violation of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee. Then we need to

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

tl;dr; * Moved #2 to #3 and #3 to #2 * Added wording for assuming positive intent to #2 PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC): 1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V4

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Tl;dr; > > * Removed specific examples and reworded #3 to be more concise > > PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC): > > 1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

James, I was describing a real live scenario. I was describing what happened to Linus Torvalds. Only part was he hasn't left yet. He's stood his ground and ignored the tyrants. Remember I'm on the side of not having a Coc. I have trouble debating things I don't believe in. I was

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> everyone should be excellent to one another, as defined in a general CoC I think CoralineAda has debated extensively why being excellent is not sufficient. https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/codes-of-conduct-when-being-excellent-is-not-enough I personally don't have the patience to

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> > > https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/codes-of-conduct-when-being-excellent-is-not-enough > That post seems to discuss why a written CoC is needed (as opposed to an unwritten "act professional" one). I don't believe it applies to my comment.

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

On Tue, 2016-01-12 at 09:07 -0500, Regina Obe wrote: > > If the attacker goes public, we point people at the exchange that happened > > where Tom has presumably already discussed the reasons that the > > patch/feature/ isn't being accepted. > > If someone wanted to out someone, they would

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

'Psql_General (E-mail)' <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC On Tue, 2016-01-12 at 09:07 -0500, Regina Obe wrote: > If the attacker goes public, we point people at the exchange that happened > where Tom has presumably already discussed the reasons tha

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/12/2016 02:43 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: I think that this is fairly close to something that would make sense, but there is sort of a weirdness in the CoC referring to itself in the 3rd person. It sound more like an argument for *having* a CoC than the document itself. I'm not the

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

I think that this is fairly close to something that would make sense, but there is sort of a weirdness in the CoC referring to itself in the 3rd person. It sound more like an argument for *having* a CoC than the document itself. I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5

On 01/12/2016 02:43 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: I guess I should scroll all the way down. :P To me, this reads more like the document itself. I hope I have done justice to Josh's points as well as Tom's, although I would bet there are a number of people on the list that can improve on my

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V4

Tl;dr; * Removed specific examples and reworded #3 to be more concise PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC): 1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> On Jan 12, 2016, at 12:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > [ just a few comments on specific points ] > > "Greg Sabino Mullane" writes: >>> 2. The CoC is not about being offended. The act of being offended is >>> purely a recipient response and usually the

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> 2. The CoC is not about being offended. The act of being offended is purely a > recipient response and usually the offended individual is more interested in > being a victim than moving forward. Here is my latest version. Let me know if I should throw in a github repo so it's easier to

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

"Joshua D. Drake" writes: > How about we meet in the middle: > A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free > of non-technical or personal comments related to gender, sexual > orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race or >

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

(Sorry for the dup post. I felt having a clean thread without having to cross-reference was worth the minor faux pas.) > 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size or race.

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> So is life. We aren't here to wipe butts and change a diaper. But the original isn't constructive of what to do. If I am attacked personally I will feel offended, the point is what I do about it. Whining about bring offended vs bringing it up and saying that it is not acceptable behaviour are

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V2

tl;dr; * Modified #2 to be less harsh. * Modified #3 with TGL and James comments * Did not remove examples as I believe they are vital to the success I saw Regina's post, I believe it is good for context but I also believe that something concise and to the point is the better path.

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> We value the opinions of members who have contributed most more than we value > the opinions of others. > A CoC is not the place to say some animals are more equal than others. A core > commiter calling someone the n- or b- words is just as bad as me, a non > commiter (if not worse!) Yes

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

>> We value the opinions of members who have contributed most more than > we value the opinions of others. > >> A CoC is not the place to say some animals are more equal than others. A > core commiter calling someone the n- or b- words is just as bad as me, a > non commiter (if not worse!) > >

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> """ A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of > non-technical or personal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, > disability, physical appearance, body size or race. """ I really think you should leave out the whole " gender, sexual orientation,

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

On 01/11/2016 02:27 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 01/11/2016 02:22 PM, Brian Dunavant wrote: 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size or race. I think you meant "free OF

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

On 01/11/2016 02:41 PM, Brian Dunavant wrote: "3) A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of negative personal criticism directed at a member of a community, rather than at the technical merit of a topic." A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

On 01/11/2016 02:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Joshua D. Drake" writes: How about we meet in the middle: A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of non-technical or personal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

>> "3) A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is >> free of negative personal criticism directed at a member of a >> community, rather than at the technical merit of a topic." >> > A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free > of non-technical or

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V2

On 1/11/2016 6:41 PM, Alban Hertroys wrote: > >> On 12 Jan 2016, at 0:16, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of >> non-technical or personal comments, for example ones related to gender, >> sexual

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is one that focuses on the technical merit of ideas and solutions rather than on the person behind them. I still prefer this wording as there is no need for us to list the ways in which someone can personally be attacked. Should the

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

Why must it be free of personal comments? "Tom, I like the way you handed this issue. Good work!" Is a personal comment. Why do we need lists? What specifically is wrong with "that focuses on the tech and not the person" version? Jim On January 11, 2016 6:04:03 PM EST, "Joshua D. Drake"

[GENERAL] WIP: CoC

Hello, Below please find a WIP CoC for the PostgreSQL.Org project: PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC): 1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

On 01/11/2016 02:22 PM, Brian Dunavant wrote: 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size or race. I think you meant "free OF comments". I did. However it still picks a

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

On 01/11/2016 02:30 PM, James Keener wrote: (Sorry for the dup post. I felt having a clean thread without having to cross-reference was worth the minor faux pas.) 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of comments related to gender, sexual orientation,

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> We value the opinions of members who have contributed most more than we value > the opinions of others. A CoC is not the place to say some animals are more equal than others. A core commiter calling someone the n- or b- words is just as bad as me, a non commiter (if not worse!) > While we

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V2

> On 12 Jan 2016, at 0:16, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of > non-technical or personal comments, for example ones related to gender, > sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size,

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free > comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical > appearance, body size or race. I think you meant "free OF comments". However it still picks a few special classes of complaint, some of which cause

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

On 1/11/2016 4:35 PM, James Keener wrote: To me that's psychological trauma. It's the same psychological trauma I >had to face being born a left-handed and being forced to write with my >right-hand. But it's still not trauma, where is the trauma? Something like Master/Slave to Primary/Replica

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

Jim, > That has nothing to do with the Code of Conduct, though. The community > accepting Tom saying "no" to Feature X is vastly different than the community > not calling Tom out for being mean. > The CoC is about the later situation and not the prior; and the community > should call Tom

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

> That has nothing to do with the Code of Conduct, though. The community > accepting Tom saying "no" to Feature X is vastly different than the community > not calling Tom out for being mean. > The CoC is about the later situation and not the prior; and the community > should call Tom out.

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

>> That has nothing to do with the Code of Conduct, though. The >> community accepting Tom saying "no" to Feature X is vastly >> different than the community not calling Tom out for being mean. > >> The CoC is about the later situation and not the prior; and the >> community should call Tom

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V3

tl;dr; * Removed #6 (Social Justice) PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC): 1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in a safe,

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

[ just a few comments on specific points ] "Greg Sabino Mullane" writes: >> 2. The CoC is not about being offended. The act of being offended is >> purely a recipient response and usually the offended individual is more >> interested in being a victim than moving forward. >

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 (Wow. I cannot recall a time I've seen so many posts that just make me shake my head in sadness. It's painfully obvious that a code of conduct is way outside the wheelhouse of many of the participants in this thread.) > Below please find a

Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V3

Any reason not to just adopt the contributor covenant? http://contributor-covenant.org/ tl;dr; * Removed #6 (Social Justice) PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC): 1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing a safe, respectful,