Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim(at)jimkeener(dot)com> writes:
> Do we need a code of conduct like this, or so we need a more general
> dispute resolution process?

We haven't really had many "disputes" in general, so I'm not sure why you
feel that something else is needed. In any case, given that not everyone
is even happy with the notion of a CoC, moving for something that's even
more far-reaching seems unlikely to succeed right now. Perhaps we can
revisit the scope of coverage in a few years when we have some experience
with this version.

> A code of conduct is basically "be excellent to each other", but what
> that means is never going to be well codified in a document anyone can
> produce. It's why we have a judiciary in the "real world".

Agreed, and that's why we need a committee to resolve the actual meaning
of "be excellent to each other" in any particular situation. We've not
tried to nail down exact behavior requirements in the document.

> I don't participate too much here, but I've never see a group implement
> a code of conduct go well.

Yeah, personally I'm a bit worried about this too. The proposed CoC
does contain provisions to try to prevent misusing it, but whether those
are strong enough remains to be seen --- and it'll depend a good deal
on the judgment of the committee members. We have a provision in there
for periodic review of the CoC, and it'll be important to adjust it if
we see abuses.

In general, the PG community has a long track record of mostly civil
interactions, so I'm optimistic that that will continue. The CoC should
only come into play in cases where people are not following community
norms. If we were trying to impose a CoC to improve a situation where
not-so-civil interactions were common, I agree that it likely wouldn't
work.

regards, tom lane