Re: Code of Conduct plan

As long as subscribers to the list or attendants at a conference do not violate explicit or implicit house rules, what
businessdoes Postgres have worrying about what they do or say elsewhere?  Some version of an 'all-of-life' clause may
beappropriate to the Marines or  federal judges, but it strikes me as overreach for a technical listserv whose subject
isa particular relational database. The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. "Stick to your
knitting" or the KISS principle seem good advice in this context. 
 

On 9/16/18, 7:08 AM, "Stephen Cook" <sclists@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2018-09-16 00:00, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
    > On 15/09/18 08:17, Tom Lane wrote:
    >> Yeah, this.  The PG community is mostly nice people, AFAICT.  I'll be
    >> astonished (and worried) if the CoC committee finds much to do.  We're
    >> implementing this mostly to make newcomers to the project feel that
    >> it's a safe space.
    > 
    > Agreed. However I think the all-of-life clause gives an open door to
    > potential less than well intentioned new members joining up to extend a
    > SJW agenda. So in fact the unintended consequence of this may be a
    > *less* safe place for some existing members - unless all of their social
    > media utterances are agreeable to the angry militant left.
    
    This is my only concern, there are some very sensitive people out there
    just looking for scandal / publicity. No reason to give them a larger
    attack surface. Maybe that sounds paranoid but look around, there are
    folks that want to spread the US culture war to every front, including
    open source projects on the internet.
    
    This sentence in the CoC should be worded to exclude things that are not
    directed harassment when outside of the community spaces. For example,
    some "incorrect opinion" on Twitter should have little bearing if it
    wasn't meant as an "attack". Maybe for extreme cases there could be a
    "hey you're making us look bad and scaring people away, chill with the
    hate speech or leave" clause, but that should only apply if it is
    someone whose name is publicly associated with Postgres and they are
    saying really terrible things. I feel there is a big difference between
    keeping it civil/safe in the lists and conferences, and making people
    afraid to say anything controversial (in the USA) anywhere ever.
    
    Maybe the way the committee is set up, it will handle this fairly. But
    it's better to be explicit about it IMO, so as not to attract
    professional complainers.
    
    
    -- Stephen