Обсуждение: Code of Conduct
Maybe Trump should write this
On 01/11/2016 10:16 AM, Bret Stern wrote: > Maybe Trump should write this Unfortunately Trump would likely not follow the CoC. Thank you for the troll. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.
Gosh, I've got a lot of love for CoCs; I've heard great things, really good things, some things, about CoCs, that some of them have been really helping in a yuge way with some fantastic projects. Sometimes some people, a lot of people, have said that I could write a CoC, and you know, I think they're right, because my CoC is pretty damn strong, because I believe my CoC could Make Postgres Great Again. On 11 January 2016 at 18:32, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On 01/11/2016 10:16 AM, Bret Stern wrote: >> >> Maybe Trump should write this > > > Unfortunately Trump would likely not follow the CoC. > > Thank you for the troll. > > JD > > -- > Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 > PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. > Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't > control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you. > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Geoff, > Gosh, I've got a lot of love for CoCs; I've heard great things, really good things, some things, about CoCs, that someof them have been really helping in a yuge way with some fantastic projects. > Sometimes some people, a lot of people, have said that I could write a CoC, and you know, I think they're right, becausemy CoC is pretty damn strong, because I believe my CoC could Make Postgres Great Again. While this is funny to some, I don't think it adds value to this conversation. I would consider it a derailment and notvery helpful. If I had a Coc to point at, I would point at the section I feel you are violating. Thanks, Regina
On 11 January 2016 at 20:13, Regina Obe <lr@pcorp.us> wrote: > While this is funny to some, I don't think it adds value to this conversation. I would consider it a derailment and notvery helpful. > > If I had a Coc to point at, I would point at the section I feel you are violating. If there were a CoC that would explicitly disallow occasional lighthearted humour to a non-development list that is intended to offend no-one then I would most definitely remove myself from such a project. Some may consider that a positive thing, but I would like to think that in the main I have at least tried to help in the small ways that I could. Your post, on the other hand, is clearly intended to censure a fellow contributor to the list, which I find far more offensive. I guess that's the problem with CoCs, because to some people what's reasonable behaviour is utterly unacceptable to others. For what it's worth, I would consider my post to be no less on topic for postgres-general than the original topic. Even notwithstanding that I think it would be a complete waste of time and resources I don't consider this the correct place to hold such a conversation: there is a -docs list, after all. But since I'm able to simply ignore and delete those posts that don't interest me, I didn't really see any point in saying anything. Geoff
Geoff, > If there were a CoC that would explicitly disallow occasional lighthearted humour to a non-development list that is intendedto offend no-one then I would most definitely remove myself from such a project. > Some may consider that a positive thing, but I would like to think that in the main I have at least tried to help in thesmall ways that I could. > Your post, on the other hand, is clearly intended to censure a fellow contributor to the list, which I find far more offensive.I guess that's the problem with CoCs, because to some people what's reasonable behaviour is utterly unacceptableto others. > For what it's worth, I would consider my post to be no less on topic for postgres-general than the original topic. Evennotwithstanding that I think it would be a complete waste of time and resources I don't consider this the correct placeto hold such a conversation: > there is a -docs list, after all. But since I'm able to simply ignore and delete those posts that don't interest me, Ididn't really see any point in saying anything. > Geoff The Coc allows light-hearted humor, I'm so disappointed you didn't get my clever punning in my last email. I thought itwas a treasure. Now while what you said is fine for this list, it's questionable it adds value to this discussion. On further observation, I realize it can be used as a testcase to test the strength of this Coc. So I stand corrected thisis quite relevant and useful to this discussion. In fact, I think we should package all these and use them in regressiontests for this Coc. Thanks, Regina
On 11 January 2016 at 21:11, Regina Obe <lr@pcorp.us> wrote: > The Coc allows light-hearted humor, I'm so disappointed you didn't get my clever punning in my last email. I thoughtit was a treasure. Hah! The irony is I had deliberately avoided making the obvious gag because I've been called out previously for using misogynistic language on the lists. Apologies for missing your point :) Geoff
On 1/11/2016 1:11 PM, Regina Obe wrote: > On further observation, I realize it can be used as a testcase to test the strength of this Coc. So I stand correctedthis is quite relevant and useful to this discussion. In fact, I think we should package all these and use themin regression tests for this Coc. gee, we better get a lawyer to make sure all the language in the CoC is ironclad and comprehensive. /me runs screaming into the distance. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
On 01/11/2016 01:20 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 1/11/2016 1:11 PM, Regina Obe wrote: >> On further observation, I realize it can be used as a testcase to test >> the strength of this Coc. So I stand corrected this is quite relevant >> and useful to this discussion. In fact, I think we should package all >> these and use them in regression tests for this Coc. > > gee, we better get a lawyer to make sure all the language in the CoC is > ironclad and comprehensive. The sad part is that this is a solved issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule > > /me runs screaming into the distance. I'm right behind you. > > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
Regina Obe wrote: > > If I had a Coc to point at, I would point at the section I feel you are violating. +1 funny!
Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 11 January 2016 at 20:13, Regina Obe <lr@pcorp.us> wrote: >> While this is funny to some, I don't think it adds value to this conversation. I would consider it a derailment and notvery helpful. >> >> If I had a Coc to point at, I would point at the section I feel you are violating. > > If there were a CoC that would explicitly disallow occasional > lighthearted humour... I would most definitely remove myself > > Your post, on the other hand, is clearly intended to censure a fellow > contributor ... I think you missed the sarcasm. I thought your comment was great when I read it, and the I though her retort was even better!!
> following a long consultation process
It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored. Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's opinions and concerns were taken into consideration. There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.
> Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone to join and participate in.
I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club.
Jim
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored. Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's opinions and concerns were taken into consideration. There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.
> Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone to join and participate in.
I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club.
Jim
On September 18, 2018 6:27:56 AM EDT, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:
The PostgreSQL Core team are pleased to announce that following a long consultation process, the project’s Code of Conduct (CoC) has now been finalised and published at https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/.Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone to join and participate in.A Code of Conduct Committee has been formed to handle any complaints. This consists of the following volunteers:- Stacey Haysler (Chair)- Lætitia Avrot- Vik Fearing- Jonathan Katz- Ilya KosmodemianskyWe would like to extend our thanks and gratitude to Stacey Haysler for her patience and expertise in helping develop the Code of Conduct, forming the committee and guiding the work to completion.--
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> following a long consultation process
It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored. Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's opinions and concerns were taken into consideration. There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.
> Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone to join and participate in.
I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club.
Jim
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored. Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's opinions and concerns were taken into consideration. There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.
> Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone to join and participate in.
I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club.
Jim
On September 18, 2018 6:27:56 AM EDT, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:
The PostgreSQL Core team are pleased to announce that following a long consultation process, the project’s Code of Conduct (CoC) has now been finalised and published at https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/.Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone to join and participate in.A Code of Conduct Committee has been formed to handle any complaints. This consists of the following volunteers:- Stacey Haysler (Chair)- Lætitia Avrot- Vik Fearing- Jonathan Katz- Ilya KosmodemianskyWe would like to extend our thanks and gratitude to Stacey Haysler for her patience and expertise in helping develop the Code of Conduct, forming the committee and guiding the work to completion.--
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 09/18/2018 01:47 PM, James Keener wrote: > > following a long consultation process > > It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored. > Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down > everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's > opinions and concerns were taken into consideration. I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure which dissenting voices you think were ignored, but from what I've observed in the various CoC threads the core team took the time to respond to all comments. That does not necessarily mean the resulting CoC makes everyone happy, but unfortunately that's not quite possible. And it does not mean it was not an honest consultation. IMO the core team did a good job in listening to comments, tweaking the wording and/or explaining the reasoning. Kudos to them. > There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is > overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always > simply, plainly, and purposely ignored. No, they were not. There were multiple long discussions about exactly these dangers, You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored. > > Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to > ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone > to join and participate in. > > I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social > ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this > is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club. > Ultimately, it's a matter of trust that the CoC committee and core team apply the CoC in a careful and cautious way. Based on my personal experience with most of the people involved in both groups I'm not worried about this part. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 09/18/2018 01:47 PM, James Keener wrote: > > following a long consultation process > > It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored. > Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down > everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's > opinions and concerns were taken into consideration. I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure which dissenting voices you think were ignored, but from what I've observed in the various CoC threads the core team took the time to respond to all comments. That does not necessarily mean the resulting CoC makes everyone happy, but unfortunately that's not quite possible. And it does not mean it was not an honest consultation. IMO the core team did a good job in listening to comments, tweaking the wording and/or explaining the reasoning. Kudos to them. > There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is > overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always > simply, plainly, and purposely ignored. No, they were not. There were multiple long discussions about exactly these dangers, You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored. > > Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to > ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone > to join and participate in. > > I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social > ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this > is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club. > Ultimately, it's a matter of trust that the CoC committee and core team apply the CoC in a careful and cautious way. Based on my personal experience with most of the people involved in both groups I'm not worried about this part. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored.
I can accept that I don't like the outcome, but I can point to maybe a dozen people in the last
exchange worried about the CoC being used to further political goals, and the only response
was "well, the CoC Committee will handle it reasonable" which is not a good answer, because
that's exactly the situation that we are worried about not happening! These concerns were never
actually addressed and always just brushed aside -- that's what I found bothersome and worrisome.
We shouldn't have to expect the rules to be applied fairly in order to counter actual abuses of the
rules. I've seen it in other groups and have been the target of such actions. (I had the gall to claim
that hiring practices that require submitting side- or open-source- work aren't only detrimental to
women because they statistically shoulder more of the housework and childcare, but also to
husbands and fathers who take an active role in the household and childcare. It wasn't intended to
diminish the effect this hiring practice has on women, but to suggest that it's a broader problem than
the conversation at that point was making it out to be. I was subsequently silenced and eventually
booted from the group for that incident and another, in a social channel, where a discussion on guns
was taking place and someone said that the discussion is sexist and this is why there are so few
female programmers, and I had the impertinence to say that I know more women who hunt and shot
for sport then men (it's ~50-50 in this area). Forgive me for not having a favourable view of CoCs.)
So, it's not that I don't trust the CoC Committee, but I just really don't trust most people. The clearer
the rules the better. As it stands, the rules are extremely vague and overreaching.
Jim
You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored.
I can accept that I don't like the outcome, but I can point to maybe a dozen people in the last
exchange worried about the CoC being used to further political goals, and the only response
was "well, the CoC Committee will handle it reasonable" which is not a good answer, because
that's exactly the situation that we are worried about not happening! These concerns were never
actually addressed and always just brushed aside -- that's what I found bothersome and worrisome.
We shouldn't have to expect the rules to be applied fairly in order to counter actual abuses of the
rules. I've seen it in other groups and have been the target of such actions. (I had the gall to claim
that hiring practices that require submitting side- or open-source- work aren't only detrimental to
women because they statistically shoulder more of the housework and childcare, but also to
husbands and fathers who take an active role in the household and childcare. It wasn't intended to
diminish the effect this hiring practice has on women, but to suggest that it's a broader problem than
the conversation at that point was making it out to be. I was subsequently silenced and eventually
booted from the group for that incident and another, in a social channel, where a discussion on guns
was taking place and someone said that the discussion is sexist and this is why there are so few
female programmers, and I had the impertinence to say that I know more women who hunt and shot
for sport then men (it's ~50-50 in this area). Forgive me for not having a favourable view of CoCs.)
So, it's not that I don't trust the CoC Committee, but I just really don't trust most people. The clearer
the rules the better. As it stands, the rules are extremely vague and overreaching.
Jim
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:35 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 09/18/2018 01:47 PM, James Keener wrote:
> > following a long consultation process
>
> It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored.
> Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down
> everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's
> opinions and concerns were taken into consideration.
I respectfully disagree.
I'm not sure which dissenting voices you think were ignored, but from
what I've observed in the various CoC threads the core team took the
time to respond to all comments. That does not necessarily mean the
resulting CoC makes everyone happy, but unfortunately that's not quite
possible. And it does not mean it was not an honest consultation.
IMO the core team did a good job in listening to comments, tweaking the
wording and/or explaining the reasoning. Kudos to them.
I said I would stand aside my objections after the last point I mentioned them but I did not feel that my particular objection and concern with regard to one specific sentence added got much of a hearing. This being said, it is genuinely hard to sort through the noise and try to reach the signal. I think the resurgence of the debate about whether we need a code of conduct made it very difficult to discuss specific objections to specific wording. So to be honest the breakdown was mutual.
> There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is
> overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always
> simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.
No, they were not. There were multiple long discussions about exactly
these dangers, You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored.
Also those of us who had specific, actionable concerns were often drowned out by the noise. That's deeply unfortunate.
I think those of us who had specific concerns about one specific sentence that was added were drowned out by those who seemed to be opposed to the idea of a code of conduct generally.
I would have appreciated at least a reason why the concerns I had about the fact that the addition a) doesn't cover what it is needs to cover, and b) will attract complaints that it shouldn't cover was not considered valid. But I can understand that given the noise-to-signal ratio of the discussion made such discussion next to impossible.
Again I find that regrettable.
> > Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to
> ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone
> to join and participate in.
>
> I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social
> ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this
> is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club.
>
Ultimately, it's a matter of trust that the CoC committee and core team
apply the CoC in a careful and cautious way. Based on my personal
experience with most of the people involved in both groups I'm not
worried about this part.
I would actually go further than you here. The CoC committee *cannot* apply the CoC in the way that the opponents fear. The fact is, Europe has anti-discrimination laws regarding social and political ideology (something the US might want to consider as it would help avoid problems on this list ;-) ). And different continents have different norms on these sorts of things. Pushing a social ideology via the code of conduct would, I suspect, result in everything from legal action to large emerging markets going elsewhere. So I don't think ti is a question of "trust us" but rather that the community won't let that sort of abuse happen no matter who is on the CoC committee.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:35 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 09/18/2018 01:47 PM, James Keener wrote:
> > following a long consultation process
>
> It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored.
> Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down
> everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's
> opinions and concerns were taken into consideration.
I respectfully disagree.
I'm not sure which dissenting voices you think were ignored, but from
what I've observed in the various CoC threads the core team took the
time to respond to all comments. That does not necessarily mean the
resulting CoC makes everyone happy, but unfortunately that's not quite
possible. And it does not mean it was not an honest consultation.
IMO the core team did a good job in listening to comments, tweaking the
wording and/or explaining the reasoning. Kudos to them.
I said I would stand aside my objections after the last point I mentioned them but I did not feel that my particular objection and concern with regard to one specific sentence added got much of a hearing. This being said, it is genuinely hard to sort through the noise and try to reach the signal. I think the resurgence of the debate about whether we need a code of conduct made it very difficult to discuss specific objections to specific wording. So to be honest the breakdown was mutual.
> There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is
> overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always
> simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.
No, they were not. There were multiple long discussions about exactly
these dangers, You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored.
Also those of us who had specific, actionable concerns were often drowned out by the noise. That's deeply unfortunate.
I think those of us who had specific concerns about one specific sentence that was added were drowned out by those who seemed to be opposed to the idea of a code of conduct generally.
I would have appreciated at least a reason why the concerns I had about the fact that the addition a) doesn't cover what it is needs to cover, and b) will attract complaints that it shouldn't cover was not considered valid. But I can understand that given the noise-to-signal ratio of the discussion made such discussion next to impossible.
Again I find that regrettable.
> > Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to
> ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone
> to join and participate in.
>
> I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social
> ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this
> is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club.
>
Ultimately, it's a matter of trust that the CoC committee and core team
apply the CoC in a careful and cautious way. Based on my personal
experience with most of the people involved in both groups I'm not
worried about this part.
I would actually go further than you here. The CoC committee *cannot* apply the CoC in the way that the opponents fear. The fact is, Europe has anti-discrimination laws regarding social and political ideology (something the US might want to consider as it would help avoid problems on this list ;-) ). And different continents have different norms on these sorts of things. Pushing a social ideology via the code of conduct would, I suspect, result in everything from legal action to large emerging markets going elsewhere. So I don't think ti is a question of "trust us" but rather that the community won't let that sort of abuse happen no matter who is on the CoC committee.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
Greetings, * Chris Travers (chris.travers@gmail.com) wrote: > I said I would stand aside my objections after the last point I mentioned > them but I did not feel that my particular objection and concern with > regard to one specific sentence added got much of a hearing. This being > said, it is genuinely hard to sort through the noise and try to reach the > signal. I think the resurgence of the debate about whether we need a code > of conduct made it very difficult to discuss specific objections to > specific wording. So to be honest the breakdown was mutual. I would ask that you, and anyone else who has a suggestion for how to improve or revise the CoC, submit your ideas to the committee by email'ing coc@postgresql.org. As was discussed previously, the current CoC isn't written in stone and it will be changed and amended as needed. Thanks! Stephen
Вложения
Greetings, * Chris Travers (chris.travers@gmail.com) wrote: > I said I would stand aside my objections after the last point I mentioned > them but I did not feel that my particular objection and concern with > regard to one specific sentence added got much of a hearing. This being > said, it is genuinely hard to sort through the noise and try to reach the > signal. I think the resurgence of the debate about whether we need a code > of conduct made it very difficult to discuss specific objections to > specific wording. So to be honest the breakdown was mutual. I would ask that you, and anyone else who has a suggestion for how to improve or revise the CoC, submit your ideas to the committee by email'ing coc@postgresql.org. As was discussed previously, the current CoC isn't written in stone and it will be changed and amended as needed. Thanks! Stephen
Вложения
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> I would ask that you, and anyone else who has a suggestion for how to
> improve or revise the CoC, submit your ideas to the committee by
> email'ing coc@postgresql.org.
> As was discussed previously, the current CoC isn't written in stone and
> it will be changed and amended as needed.
The change process is spelled out explicitly in the CoC document.
I believe though that the current plan is to wait awhile (circa 1 year)
and get some experience with the current version before considering
changes.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:35 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> I would ask that you, and anyone else who has a suggestion for how to
> improve or revise the CoC, submit your ideas to the committee by
> email'ing coc@postgresql.org.
> As was discussed previously, the current CoC isn't written in stone and
> it will be changed and amended as needed.
The change process is spelled out explicitly in the CoC document.
I believe though that the current plan is to wait awhile (circa 1 year)
and get some experience with the current version before considering
changes.
My $0.02:
If you are going to have a comment period, have a comment period and actually deliberate over changes.
If you are going to just gather feedback and wait a year, use some sort of issue system.
Otherwise, there is no reason to think that feedback gathered now will have any impact at all in the next revision.
regards, tom lane
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
On 18/09/18 20:27, Dave Page wrote: > The PostgreSQL Core team are pleased to announce that following a long > consultation process, the project’s Code of Conduct (CoC) has now been > finalised and published at https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/. > > Please take time to read and understand theCoC, which is intended to > ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone > to join and participate in. > > A Code of Conduct Committee has been formed to handle any complaints. > This consists of the following volunteers: > > - Stacey Haysler (Chair) > -LætitiaAvrot > - Vik Fearing > - Jonathan Katz > - Ilya Kosmodemiansky > > We would like to extend our thanks and gratitude to Stacey Haysler for > her patience and expertise in helping develop the Code of Conduct, > forming the committee and guiding the work to completion. > > -- > Dave Page > PostgreSQL Core Team > http://www.postgresql.org/ > <http://www.postgresql.org/> It's overly long and convoluted. "inclusivity" Is a ideologue buzzword of particular individuals that offer very little value apart from excessive policing of speech and behaviour assumed to be a problem where none exist. "Personal attacks and negative comments on personal characteristics are unacceptable, and will not be permitted. Examples of personal characteristics include, but are not limited to age, race, national origin or ancestry, religion, gender, or sexual orientation." So just leaving it at "Personal attacks" and ending it there won't do obviously. I'm a big advocate of people sorting out there own personal disputes in private but... "further personal attacks (public or *private*);" ...lets assume people don't have the maturity for that and make it all public. "may be considered offensive by fellow members" - Purely subjective and irrelevant to a piece of community software. There is much more in this CoC that is concerning and appears to follow the same methodology to be nothing more than a green light to those who have made their way within the inner hierarchy to run it like a overly politicized dictatorship. I'm not sure if there is likely to be a large concerning number of people that are likely to violate this CoC. However, it is written in a such a way that will open it up to heavy handed abuse. The fact that this CoC made it this far to be actually published is concerning and IMO alludes to requests for feedback to not be taken seriously. In fact I'm somewhat certain of this. I assumed this was a open community with a large number of voluntary members. Remember this is a piece of software most end users don't know or even should care about. K.I.S.S. That's my feedback. Regards, Julian.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:30:56 +0200 ERR ORR <rd0002@gmail.com> wrote: > A CoC will inevitably lead to the project taken over by leftists, Here we go again. SteveT Steve Litt September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:24:29AM +1000, Julian Paul wrote:
> It's overly long and convoluted.
>
> "inclusivity" Is a ideologue buzzword of particular individuals that offer
> very little value apart from excessive policing of speech and behaviour
> assumed to be a problem where none exist.
>
> "Personal attacks and negative comments on personal characteristics are
> unacceptable, and will not be permitted. Examples of personal
> characteristics include, but are not limited to age, race, national origin
> or ancestry, religion, gender, or sexual orientation."
>
> So just leaving it at "Personal attacks" and ending it there won't do
> obviously. I'm a big advocate of people sorting out there own personal
> disputes in private but...
>
> "further personal attacks (public or *private*);"
>
> ...lets assume people don't have the maturity for that and make it all
> public.
>
> "may be considered offensive by fellow members" - Purely subjective and
> irrelevant to a piece of community software.
You might notice that a bullet list was removed and those example items
were added 18 months ago:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Code_of_Conduct&diff=31924&oldid=29402
I realize that putting no examples has its attractions, but some felt
that having examples would be helpful. I am not a big fan of the
"protected groups" concept because it is often exploited, which is why
they are listed more as examples.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:31 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:24:29AM +1000, Julian Paul wrote:
> It's overly long and convoluted.
>
> "inclusivity" Is a ideologue buzzword of particular individuals that offer
> very little value apart from excessive policing of speech and behaviour
> assumed to be a problem where none exist.
>
> "Personal attacks and negative comments on personal characteristics are
> unacceptable, and will not be permitted. Examples of personal
> characteristics include, but are not limited to age, race, national origin
> or ancestry, religion, gender, or sexual orientation."
>
> So just leaving it at "Personal attacks" and ending it there won't do
> obviously. I'm a big advocate of people sorting out there own personal
> disputes in private but...
>
> "further personal attacks (public or *private*);"
>
> ...lets assume people don't have the maturity for that and make it all
> public.
>
> "may be considered offensive by fellow members" - Purely subjective and
> irrelevant to a piece of community software.
You might notice that a bullet list was removed and those example items
were added 18 months ago:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Code_of_Conduct&diff=31924&oldid=29402
I realize that putting no examples has its attractions, but some felt
that having examples would be helpful. I am not a big fan of the
"protected groups" concept because it is often exploited, which is why
they are listed more as examples.
I suspect most of us could probably get behind the groups listed in the antidiscrimination section of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights at least as a compromise.
Quoting the English version:
"Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."
The inclusion of "political or any other opinion" is a nice addition and prevents a lot of concern.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 05:20:55PM +0200, Chris Travers wrote: > I suspect most of us could probably get behind the groups listed in the > antidiscrimination section of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights at > least as a compromise. > > Quoting the English version: > > "Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or > social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any > other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, > age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited." > > The inclusion of "political or any other opinion" is a nice addition and > prevents a lot of concern. Huh. Certainly something to consider when we review the CoC in a year. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 2018-09-20 16:13, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 05:20:55PM +0200, Chris Travers wrote: >> I suspect most of us could probably get behind the groups listed in the >> antidiscrimination section of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights at >> least as a compromise. >> >> Quoting the English version: >> >> "Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or >> social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any >> other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, >> age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited." >> >> The inclusion of "political or any other opinion" is a nice addition and >> prevents a lot of concern. > > Huh. Certainly something to consider when we review the CoC in a year. > Too bad it wasn't brought up earlier. -- Stephen