Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:47 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk(at)bmrb(dot)wisc(dot)edu>
> wrote:
> > So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
> > people access to postgresql community support channel?
>
> Yes.
>
> > "Because
> > somebody who may or may not be the same person, allegedly said something
> > somewhere that some other tweet disagreed with on faceplant"?
> >
> > Great plan if you do for-pay postgresql support for the living.
>
> You can make your own conclusions about my motivations, just as I'll
> make my own conclusions about yours. I'm not going to engage with you
> on either, though.
>

With regard to the concerns about authoritarianism, I have to defend the
Code of Conduct here.

It's not anything of the above. The PostgreSQL project has a pretty good
track record of ensuring that people can participate across boundaries of
culture, ethnicity, political ideology (which is always informed by culture
and ethnicity), and the like. On the whole I trust the committee to make
sound judgments.

The thing is, yes it is scary that someone might be effectively denied
access to commons based on false accusations, but it is also concerning
that people might be driven away from commons by aggressive harassment (on
or off list) or the like. The code of conduct is a welcome step in that
goal. I think we should trust long-standing communities with a track
record of being generally cultivating access to the commons with decisions
which foster that. The fact is, at least I would hope we all agree that

This is basic governance. Communities require arbitration and management
of the economic commons we build together and this is a part of that. I am
pretty sure that's why the expansive wording was included. And I support
the right of the committee to act even for off-list behavior when it is
appropriate to do so. That part, I am not questioning. I think that's
important.

So I think a lot of the hysteria misses the point. We have good people.
We have a generally good track record of getting along. We have a track
record of not being mean to eachother because of differences in political,
social, religious, etc. belief. The committee as a custodian of this
community can't really take the hard sides on divisive issues that we might
expect in, say, an American corporation like Mozilla or Google. I think
people who worry about this don't get the weight of responsibility that
will be placed on such individuals to support a breathtakingly diverse
international project and keep the peace, giving people room for civic
engagement even on divisive issues.

And frankly I am probably being paranoid here though I find paranoia is a
good thing when it comes to care of databases and computer systems. But I
do worry about the interactions between the PostgreSQL community and the
larger world with things worded this way.

> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
>

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more