Re: Recognized PostgreSQL External Communications Channels

On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 at 22:16, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <ads(at)pgug(dot)de> wrote:

> On 16/07/2025 11:05, Dave Page wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> FWIW, it would be much easier to comment if you included the text inline
> in the email. With that said, some thoughts/questions below...
>
>
> I have this in a Google Doc, if you like I can send you the link.
>
> Intentionally I did not include the link here, for a variety of reasons.
>

I've already commented now, but I think inline is best for future threads
in front of a wide audience where Google Doc sharing would be problematic.

> 2) Some platforms do not allow multiple owners/administrators. Does that
> mean they cannot be recognised?
>
>
> Good question. Got an example?
> This is a draft and can cover such platforms, I'd like to understand how
> this looks like.
>

Well you and I (and Magnus) hit exactly this problem in one of our Telegram
channels a while back. I forget the exact details, but there was something
we found that Magnus and I couldn't do as admins, and only you could do as
the owner of the channel (which at the time we thought we should have been
able to do with our privs).

>
>
> 3) If an owner/administrator steps down, does the channel automatically
> become un-recognised? Perhaps a grace period is required?
>
>
> Yes, makes sense.
>
>
>
> 4) I find the way the doc talks about owner/administrators and then
> moderation a little confusing, to the point that I had to read it a couple
> of times until I realised it wasn't talking about 3 different groups of
> people. Perhaps the terms owner and moderators would be better? That would
> likely solve my point 2 above in some cases as well, where platforms allow
> one owner but multiple moderators.
>
>
> It might be three different groups,
>
> the owner of a service,
> an administrator with global permissions,
> a moderator who can only moderate a specific channel.
>
> It does not apply to each and every service though, which indeed makes it
> complicated.
> Slack can have all three, Telegram can not. As example.
>

Then I think the doc should spell out what those three groups are (and how
some may be the same on some platforms), and the requirements and
expectations for each. I don't think that is at all clear right now (as
evidenced by you now confirming you think there could be three groups).

> 5) I think the terms of service section needs some thought. As written, if
> a service explicitly allows (for example) hate speech, then that means we
> have to allow it in the PostgreSQL channel too. I think this section needs
> to state instead that the most restrictive terms must apply.
>
>
> Was thinking about this for a long time, but from the other end: can't
> really force users to violate the terms of service, if that collides with
> the CoC.
> You make a good point though.
>
> Open for suggestions to find a middle ground.
>

I can't think of a case where "more restrictive applies" would force a user
to violate the ToS. In my example, that would mean the service's ToS would
have to *require* hate speech for example. Can you think of a counter
example that would force a violation?

> 6) Although there is the universal get-out clause at the top allowing the
> core team to not recognise at will (kudos for keeping the proper spelling
> there :-) ), I wonder if we should also have an explicit clause stating
> that we will not recognise channels on platforms that clearly are not
> appropriate for the project, for example, a platform primarily known for
> extreme political discussion.
>
>
> That makes sense, will include it.
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> --
> Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
> German PostgreSQL User Group
> European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors
> Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project
>
>

--
Dave Page
pgAdmin: https://www.pgadmin.org
PostgreSQL: https://www.postgresql.org
pgEdge: https://www.pgedge.com