Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
wrote:

> On 09/14/2018 07:14 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>>
>> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
>>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
>>> the comments in this thread; see
>>>
>>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>>
>>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>>
>>
>> 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 is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has
>> no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full
>> stop.
>>
>
> I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...
>
> I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other
> software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they
> become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices, then
> they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we should have
> every right to sanction them by preventing them participating in our
> project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate.
>
>
> We all know that PostgreSQL is the only database we should use and anybody
> using a different one just hasn't been enlightened yet. :P
>
> I think we need to define community member. I absolutely see your point of
> the individual is a contributor but community member is rather ethereal in
> this context don't you think?
>

There are some fuzzy edges I guess (e.g. Slack), but in my mind it's always
been anyone who participates in any of the projects communications channels.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company