Re: [HACKERS] Code of Conduct plan

On Sunday, June 3, 2018, George Neuner <gneuner2(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:47:58 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> wrote:
>
> >Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey(at)proteus-tech(dot)com> writes:
> >
> >> Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents
> within
> >> the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
> >> participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
> >> brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the
> first
> >> place?
> >
> >I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
> >Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
> >them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
> >You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
> >happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
> >that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.
>
> Unfortunately, conduct codes generally aren't worth the paper they are
> written on. People who are inclined to behave badly towards others in
> the 1st place will do so regardless of any code or any consequences of
> violating the code.

I would say that such a generalization is itself of dubious value.

The only thing a conduct code really accomplishes is to make some
> subset of the signers feel good about themselves. Actions are more
> important than words.

It communicates that this community has a policing force, which itself is
non-obvious and thus worth communicating, and provides that force
guidelines for action.

> >In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
> >length in 2016. It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
> >the community wants a CoC. I don't think any useful purpose will be
> >served by re-litigating that point.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
>
> I remember that thread, but I don't remember any vote being taken. And
> the participants in the thread were self-selected for interest in the
> topic, so any consensus there is not necessarily reflective of the
> community at large.

That's pretty much par for the public dynamic of this community. And, as
noted above, such a policy doesn't need the community at-large's approval:
it's a document that constrains those that wrote it.

> I am completely in favor of civil discourse and behavior, but I am not
> in favor of unenforcible red tape.
>

The core team does have enforcement tools at its disposal. They are at
least being open about the circumstances and extents under which they would
leverage those tools.

David J.