Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 23:11, James Keener <jim(at)jimkeener(dot)com> wrote:

> And if you believe strongly that a given statement you may have made is
>> not objectionable...you should be willing to defend it in an adjudication
>> investigation.
>
>
> So because someone doesn't like what I say in a venue 100% separate from
> postgres, I have to subject myself, and waste my time, defending actions
> in this (and potentially other groups who would also adopt overly broad
> CoC) group.
>

(Usual disclaimer, I speak for myself not my employer here):

My understanding is that that's really only a concern for "Big Stuff".

If we have a committer who loudly and proudly goes to neo-nazi rallies or
pickup artist / pro-rape meetups, then actually yes, I have a problem with
that. That impacts my ability to work in the community, impacts everyone's
ability to recruit people to work on Postgres, potentially makes people
reluctant to engage with the community, etc.

Thankfully we don't.

I'm not sure how to codify it more clearly, though, and to a large degree I
think it's a case of presuming good intent and good will amongst all
parties.

It's clear that if the CoC leans too far, there'll certainly be no shortage
of proud defenders of liberty and free speech coming out of the woodwork,
right? (But remember, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from
consequences, even in nations that codify the concept of freedom of speech
at all. You shouldn't face Government sanction for it, but your peers can
still ostracise you, you can still get fired, etc.)

One of the biggest drivers of plea-bargains for innocent people in the US
> justice system is the expense of having to defend yourself. I find that to
> be a travesty; why are we duplicating that at a smaller level?
>

Because the fact that it is at a smaller level makes it way less of a
concern. No expensive lawyers. More likely we waste a lot of hot air. Like
this mail, probably.

There are intangible but very real (IMO) costs to being a community that
welcomes an unhealthy and hostile communication style, harassment and
personal attacks in the guise of technical argument, bullying defended as
making sure you have the right stuff to survive in a "meritocracy", etc.
Thankfully we are generally not such a community. But try asking a few
women you know in the Postgres community - if you can find any! - how their
experience at conferences has been. Then ask if maybe there are still a few
things we could work on changing.

I've found it quite confronting dealing with some of the more heated
exchanges on hackers from some of our most prominent team members. I've
sent the occasional gentle note to ask someone to chill and pause before
replying, too. And I've deserved to receive one a couple of times, though I
never have, as I'm far from free from blame here.

People love to point to LKML as the way it "must" be done to succeed in
software. Yet slowly that community has also come to recognise that verbal
abuse under the cloak of technical discussion is harmful to quality
discussion and drives out good people, harming the community long term.
Sure, not everything has to be super-diplomatic, but there's no excuse for
verbal bullying and wilful use of verbal aggression either. As widely
publicised, even Linus has recently recognised aspects of this, despite
being the poster child of proponents of abusive leadership for decades.

We don't have a culture like that. So in practice, I don't imagine the CoC
will see much use. The real problematic stuff that happens in this
community happens in conference halls and occasionally by private mail,
usually in the face of a power imbalance that makes the recipient/victim
reluctant to speak out. I hope a formal CoC will give them some hope
they'll be heard if they do take the personal risk to speak up. I've seen
so much victim blaming in tech that I'm not convinced most people
experiencing problems will be willing to speak out anyway, but hopefully
they'll be more so with a private and receptive group to talk to.

Let me be clear here, I'm no fan of trial by rabid mob. That's part of why
something like the CoC and a backing body is important. Otherwise people
are often forced to silently endure, or go loudly public. The latter tends
to result in a big messy explosion that hurts the community, those saying
they're victim(s) and the alleged perpetrator(s), no matter what the facts
and outcomes. It also encourages people to jump on one comment and run way
too far with it, instead of looking at patterns and giving people chances
to fix their behaviour.

I don't want us to have this:
https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spiraled-way-out-of-control/
. Which is actually why I favour a CoC, one with a resolution process and
encouragement toward some common sense. Every player in that story was an
idiot, and while none deserved the abuse and harrassment that came their
way, it's a shame it wan't handled by a complaint to a conference CoC group
instead.

I'd like the CoC to emphasise that while we don't want to restrain people
from "calling out" egregious behaviour, going via the CoC team is often
more likely to lead to constructive communication and positive change.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services