Обсуждение: WIP: CoC

Hello,

Below please find a WIP CoC for the PostgreSQL.Org project:

PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC):

1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing
a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person
who is willing to contribute in a safe, respectful, productive and
collaborative way.

2. The CoC is not about being offended. The act of being offended is
purely a recipient response and usually the offended individual is more
interested in being a victim than moving forward.

3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical
appearance, body size or race.

4. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists,
IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be construed as a violation
of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee.

5. The CoC is only about interaction with the PostgreSQL community. Your
private and public lives outside of the PostgreSQL community are your own.

6. The CoC is not about Social Justice.


Sincerely,

JD

P.S. I sent this to the old thread first, please ignore that one and
work with this one.
--
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.

> 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
> comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical
> appearance, body size or race.

I think you meant "free OF comments".

However it still picks a few special classes of complaint, some of
which cause ambiguity such as 'gender'.  Does that mean I can't use
"he/she" pronouns?  It also implies that i'm allowed to criticize
people in other ways, say, their political affiliation or country.
Rather than list a bunch of "no no" perhaps something like:

"3)  A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is
free of negative personal criticism directed at a member of a
community, rather than at the technical merit of a topic."

On 01/11/2016 02:22 PM, Brian Dunavant wrote:
>> 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
>> comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical
>> appearance, body size or race.
>
> I think you meant "free OF comments".

I did.

>
> However it still picks a few special classes of complaint, some of
> which cause ambiguity such as 'gender'.  Does that mean I can't use
> "he/she" pronouns?  It also implies that i'm allowed to criticize
> people in other ways, say, their political affiliation or country.
> Rather than list a bunch of "no no" perhaps something like:
>
> "3)  A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is
> free of negative personal criticism directed at a member of a
> community, rather than at the technical merit of a topic."
>

First, I want to make sure we don't get too far into the weeds here.

I think your example is a good one but I do think we need examples so
perhaps:

A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
of non-technical or personal comments related to gender, sexual
orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size or race.

???

Sincerely,

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.

>> "3)  A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is
>> free of negative personal criticism directed at a member of a
>> community, rather than at the technical merit of a topic."
>>

> A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
> of non-technical or personal comments related to gender, sexual orientation,
> disability, physical appearance, body size or race.

Between these two I still prefer my wording here because it
encompasses all personal attacks regardless of topic or type and
avoids hot-button words that distract from the point and can be used
for lawyering.  It also emphasizes the desired behavior instead, that
criticism should be about the technical merit of the topic.  "Don't be
a jerk, and stick to the code."  Maybe even rewording it to be a
positive instead of a negative would improve it further.

"A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is one
that focuses on the technical merit of ideas and solutions rather than
on the person behind them."

On 01/11/2016 02:30 PM, James Keener wrote:
> (Sorry for the dup post. I felt having a clean thread without having to
> cross-reference was worth the minor faux pas.)
>
>>3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
> of comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical
> appearance, body size or race.
>
> why not
>
>> 3.A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
> of ad hominem.

I still think we need the examples which is why I sent this a few
minutes ago:

""" A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
of non-technical or personal comments related to gender, sexual
orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size or race. """


> Moreover,
>
>>2. The CoC is not about being offended.The act of being offended is
> purely a recipient response and usually the offended individual is more
> interested in being a victim than moving forward.
>
> is very harsh.

So is life. We aren't here to wipe butts and change a diaper. However,
yes I do agree that it is harsh. The point is really in relation to #6,
the CoC is not about Social Justice.

There are people in this community, people I know personally who will
abuse this CoC if it is not exceedingly clear that their ability to be
offended is not relevant.

Sincerely,

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.

On 01/11/2016 02:27 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 02:22 PM, Brian Dunavant wrote:
>>> 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
>>> comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical
>>> appearance, body size or race.
>>
>> I think you meant "free OF comments".
>
> I did.
>
>>
>> However it still picks a few special classes of complaint, some of
>> which cause ambiguity such as 'gender'.  Does that mean I can't use
>> "he/she" pronouns?  It also implies that i'm allowed to criticize
>> people in other ways, say, their political affiliation or country.
>> Rather than list a bunch of "no no" perhaps something like:
>>
>> "3)  A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is
>> free of negative personal criticism directed at a member of a
>> community, rather than at the technical merit of a topic."
>>
>
> First, I want to make sure we don't get too far into the weeds here.

That is exactly where this is going to go. From a previous example given
as something to emulate:

http://couchdb.apache.org/conduct.html

Diversity Statement

" ... No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we
welcome you. Though no list can hope to be comprehensive, we explicitly
honour diversity in: age, culture, ethnicity, genotype, gender identity
or expression, language, national origin, neurotype, phenotype,
political beliefs, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic status, subculture and technical ability. ..."

You start down this path and you create more and more classifications
and explanations of interactions between classifications, until even the
lawyers beg for mercy. In the end it either turns into a mine field of
unreasonable expectations or folks realize that what they really want
can be encapsulated in, 'Be nice'.

>
> I think your example is a good one but I do think we need examples so
> perhaps:
>
> A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
> of non-technical or personal comments related to gender, sexual
> orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size or race.
>
> ???

Per your previous post:

"We could add the word inappropriate.." So who decides what is
appropriate or for that matter safe or respectful? Or do we resort to
the Justice Stewart test, to paraphrase, '"I know it when I see it, and
this is not it". In which case we are back to the eye of the beholder.


>
> Sincerely,
>
> JD
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On 01/11/2016 02:41 PM, Brian Dunavant wrote:
>>> "3)  A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is
>>> free of negative personal criticism directed at a member of a
>>> community, rather than at the technical merit of a topic."
>>>
>
>> A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
>> of non-technical or personal comments related to gender, sexual orientation,
>> disability, physical appearance, body size or race.
>
> Between these two I still prefer my wording here because it
> encompasses all personal attacks regardless of topic or type and
> avoids hot-button words that distract from the point and can be used
> for lawyering.  It also emphasizes the desired behavior instead, that
> criticism should be about the technical merit of the topic.  "Don't be
> a jerk, and stick to the code."  Maybe even rewording it to be a
> positive instead of a negative would improve it further.
>
> "A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is one
> that focuses on the technical merit of ideas and solutions rather than
> on the person behind them."
>

How about we meet in the middle:

A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
of non-technical or personal comments related to gender, sexual
orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race or
personal attacks.



--
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.

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> How about we meet in the middle:

> A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
> of non-technical or personal comments related to gender, sexual
> orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race or
> personal attacks.

That's not really meeting in the middle: it still specifies exactly
one set of disapproved topics.  Might be OK if it read like
"... personal comments, for example ones related to gender, ..."

            regards, tom lane

> 2. The CoC is not about being offended. The act of being offended is purely a recipient response and usually the
offendedindividual is more interested in being a victim than moving forward. 

Here is my latest version.  Let me know if I should throw in a github repo so it's easier to read or if you have other
plansfor a Coc. 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Like the open source technical community as a whole, our community is made up of a mixture of professionals and
volunteerswith vast differences of opinions and  
styles of communication. Our community is made up of people from many cultures and walks of life who have come together

with the common goals of making a great piece of software and helping others use this software.

We value contributions from everybody. By contributions we mean code, documentation, project outreach in form of
settingup conferences or working groups,  
package maintenance, answering and asking questions in our forums which further our mission, and providing bug reports.

If you have contributed to our project, then we consider you a member
of our extended family and value your opinions and concerns very highly.

We value the opinions of members who have contributed most more than we value the opinions of others.
This is because major contributors have already proved their desire to further our mission, and for newcomers,
their intention has not yet been established.

We want everyone entering our community willing to help out to feel welcomed.

To maintain and encourage a welcoming environment we ask all people interacting with our community to follow these
guidelineswhen in our 
public spaces.  By public spaces we mean mailing lists, IRC channels, Code repositories, and reporting bug reports

GUIDELINES

1) When in discussions keep focused on the topic being discussed.
2) Say helpful things, and if you feel you have nothing to say that furthers the discussion, say nothing.

By helpful we mean for example:
If someone asks a question, even if it's one that you think has an obvious answer, either provide an example or a link
tothe section of the manual that covers it. 

If you feel a person does not provide enough information for someone to help, point them to this link:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems

3) Do not switch the topic to yourself unless the topic happens to be about you.
For example if someone is asking a question about replication, and the words master and slave come up in discussion,
do not talk about the great master/slave sex you had last night.

4) Do not ask questions that are unrelated to the mission of our project.

USE OF TRIGGER TERMS

We have long standing terms like Master/Slave that may trigger some past trauma for some people.
While we do consider people's feelings, we weigh that against the effort of changing long understood terminology and
thepsychological trauma  
such changes would cause for the large majority of people who are not as sensitive to the usage.
As such we entertain change requests for naming of new features more than we do of renaming old features.

HANDLING ISSUES

We understand that through no fault of anybody, a person may make a comment they consider harmless that others find
veryoffensive or makes another feel small. As project maintainers 
we will monitor these and gently call people out on them even if they are a member of our maintainer group.

By gentle call out, we mean something like "I think what X was trying to say was that you need to do this" or point
themto this document and specific bullet point we feel they violated. 

We expect of everyone in our spaces to try their best to do the same in a kind and gentle manner. If you feel it's just
aminor offense and the person didn't mean harm by it,  
simply ignore it unless the pattern of talk continues.

If anyone is being  purposely antagonistic please notify the project maintainer group at ... with the specific
occurrenceand evidence that made you feel this way. 
We will judge if your complaints are valid and if we deem they are valid we will talk with the person to affect a
changein their behavior or kick them out if we determine behavior change is not possible. 

We do not tolerate those we feel are trying to derail our project by injecting
discussions that have little to do with the mission of our project.
If you have contributed nothing to our project and you make demands for change, we will try to tell you that kindly
and request you to change or leave.

We promise as project maintainers to apply the same standards on ourselves as we apply to others.



Thanks,
Regina

On 01/11/2016 02:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> How about we meet in the middle:
>
>> A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
>> of non-technical or personal comments related to gender, sexual
>> orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race or
>> personal attacks.
>
> That's not really meeting in the middle: it still specifies exactly
> one set of disapproved topics.  Might be OK if it read like
> "... personal comments, for example ones related to gender, ..."

Tom,

Oh good point. I like that. So:

A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
of non-technical or personal comments, for example ones related to
gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size,
race or personal attacks.

Sincerely,

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.

> """ A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of non-technical or personal comments
relatedto gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size or race. """ 

I really think you should leave out the whole " gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size
orrace." 

I can think of several things not accounted for there that I consider personal and a big turn-off.

As I said my biggest issue is when people are not helpful and make snide remarks about my choice of operating system,
whatmail client I use, or what editor I use to edit my code with, and what is my preferred programming language.  That
isnot covered. 

So the point is not being helpful should be avoided. If you are helpful  it's really hard to be making fun of people's
gender,sexual orientation, disability , physical appearance, body size or race or any other special classifications
someoneidentifies themselves with. 

I think people understand the concept of helpful.


Thanks,
Regina

tl;dr;

* Modified #2 to be less harsh.
* Modified #3 with TGL and James comments
* Did not remove examples as I believe they are vital to the success

I saw Regina's post, I believe it is good for context but I also believe
that something concise and to the point is the better path.

PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC):

1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing
a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person
who is willing to contribute in a safe, respectful, productive and
collaborative way.

2. The CoC is not about being offended. As with any diverse community,
anyone can get offended at anything.

3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
of non-technical or personal comments, for example ones related to
gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size,
race or personal attacks.

4. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists,
IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be construed as a violation
of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee.

5. The CoC is only about interaction with the PostgreSQL community. Your
private and public lives outside of the PostgreSQL community are your own.

6. The CoC is not about Social Justice.

Sincerely,

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.

> On 12 Jan 2016, at 0:16, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of non-technical or personal comments, for
exampleones related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race or personal
attacks.

I'm not debating whether there should be examples or not, they are usually useful, but perhaps examples belong in a
separatesection and not in the core CoC? 

Frankly though, this thread looks like a testament of why Postgres doesn't really need a CoC. You people are all being
sopolite about it that it's almost offensive! 

Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll find there is no forest.

On 1/11/2016 6:41 PM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
>
>> On 12 Jan 2016, at 0:16, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>
>> 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of non-technical or personal comments, for
exampleones related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race or personal
attacks.
>
> I'm not debating whether there should be examples or not, they are usually useful, but perhaps examples belong in a
separatesection and not in the core CoC? 

Maybe one of those sentences like "... free of personal attacks,
including but not limited to...", followed by a link to a page that
randomly generates a list of a dozen or so "protected classes". If your
particular deviance isn't in the list you can refresh and hope for the
best. And the "not limited to" part would allow us to castigate someone
who is just really good at being a bully through the loopholes.

And before someone says I'm the worst person ever for using the word
"deviance", I meant like statistically (nobody ever complains about
being in the majority).


-- Stephen

>> We value the opinions of members who have contributed most more than
> we value the opinions of others.
>
>> A CoC is not the place to say some animals are more equal than others. A
> core commiter calling someone the n- or b- words is just as bad as me, a
> non commiter (if not worse!)
>
> Yes it is.  If a stranger comes and wants something changed, and Tom
> Lane says no. You should go with Tom Lane.  Period.

That has nothing to do with the Code of Conduct, though.  The community
accepting Tom saying "no" to Feature X is vastly different than the
community not calling Tom out for being mean.  The CoC is about the
later situation and not the prior; and the community should call Tom
out. (I'm sure you're a great person, Tom, sorry you're the example
being used here.)

> Now the whole n-or-b thing gets into obvious not helpful dialogue which
> is not helpful.  I'm sure anyone would agree that if Tom called me a
> nigger, it's not helpful to our communication, and you should therefore
> tell him to shut-up regardless who he is.

So then why call him more valued? It doesn't matter in this context. Why
even bring it up. On technical matters, someone closer to the issue is
often a better arbiter of the evidence, but in matters of interpersonal
interactions, no one should be held above another person.

>> While we do consider people's feelings, we weigh that against the
> effort of changing long understood terminology and the psychological trauma
> such changes would cause for the large majority of people who are not as
> sensitive to the usage.
>
>> What psychological trauma? From changing terms? Are you crazy? (See for
> that you'd like to the CoC to tell me why that wasn't an appropriate way
> to express my disbelief that someone would equate a change of term to
> psychological trauma.
>
> Think about if all your life when you've been talking about replication
> you've been using master/slave, and someone says from now on, It's
> leader/follower.
>
> So now in every conference you go to you need to catch yourself when you
> are saying Master/Slave – oops I meant to say Leader / Follower.
>
> To me that's psychological trauma.  It's the same psychological trauma I
> had to face being born a left-handed and being forced to write with my
> right-hand.

But it's still not trauma, where is the trauma? Something like
Master/Slave to Primary/Replica (which IMHO is a more descriptive term
anyway) would be a long-term, gradual change. In all honesty no one will
care when you slip up because they'll understand it's a change in
progress. I just don't see the trauma.

Jim

On 1/11/2016 4:35 PM, James Keener wrote:
>> To me that's psychological trauma.  It's the same psychological trauma I
>> >had to face being born a left-handed and being forced to write with my
>> >right-hand.
> But it's still not trauma, where is the trauma? Something like
> Master/Slave to Primary/Replica (which IMHO is a more descriptive term
> anyway) would be a long-term, gradual change. In all honesty no one will
> care when you slip up because they'll understand it's a change in
> progress. I just don't see the trauma.


s/trauma/drama/



--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

> That has nothing to do with the Code of Conduct, though.  The community accepting Tom saying "no" to Feature X is
vastlydifferent than the community not calling Tom out for being mean.   

> The CoC is about the later situation and not the prior; and the community should call Tom out. (I'm sure you're a
greatperson, Tom, sorry you're the example being used here.) 

No.  The Coc is about protecting Tom from abuse.  I'm not worried about  YOUR good intentions, I'm worried about their
badintentions 

>> That has nothing to do with the Code of Conduct, though.  The
>> community accepting Tom saying "no" to Feature X is vastly
>> different than the community not calling Tom out for being mean.
>
>> The CoC is about the later situation and not the prior; and the
>> community should call Tom out. (I'm sure you're a great person,
>> Tom, sorry you're the example being used here.)
>
> No.  The Coc is about protecting Tom from abuse.  I'm not worried
> about  YOUR good intentions, I'm worried about their bad intentions

Giving Tom special status is not the way to protect Tom from abuse.
We protect Tom from abuse by applying the exact same anti-abuse and
harassment rules that we have for everyone else to Tom. Making
exceptions is never a good thing to do. Tom is covered by the general
case, he does not need an exception. (Sorry Tom. <3)

Jim

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160


(Wow. I cannot recall a time I've seen so many posts that just make
me shake my head in sadness. It's painfully obvious that a code of
conduct is way outside the wheelhouse of many of the participants
in this thread.)

> Below please find a WIP CoC for the PostgreSQL.Org project:

> PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC):

Nitpick: PGDG is not used. And perhaps "PostgreSQL" alone is enough?

> 2. The CoC is not about being offended. The act of being offended is
> purely a recipient response and usually the offended individual is more
> interested in being a victim than moving forward.

Too defensive; not needed in the code of conduct.

> 3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
> comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical
> appearance, body size or race.

Already addressed upthread; mostly agree with the direction it is heading.

> 4. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists,
> IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be construed as a violation
> of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee.

Too specific, covered by #1. Also, no definition of "CoC committee".

> 5. The CoC is only about interaction with the PostgreSQL community. Your
> private and public lives outside of the PostgreSQL community are your own.

Needed? I know part of a code of conduct is stating the obvious, but...

> 6. The CoC is not about Social Justice.

Really no need for this. Defensive, and introduces a loaded term.

Thanks, JD, for pushing this forward.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201601112116
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAlaUYisACgkQvJuQZxSWSsirmgCg6o54wXRWLUyn0bgtP1tFgC46
TCEAniJ1KuhJ7vju7chbxfgWBuZ7qAk0
=wZcI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

tl;dr;

* Removed #6 (Social Justice)

PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC):

1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing
a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person
who is willing to contribute in a safe, respectful, productive and
collaborative way.

2. The CoC is not about being offended. As with any diverse community,
anyone can get offended at anything.

3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
of non-technical or personal comments, for example ones related to
gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size,
race or personal attacks.

4. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists,
IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be construed as a violation
of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee.

5. The CoC is only about interaction with the PostgreSQL community. Your
private and public lives outside of the PostgreSQL community are your own.

Sincerely,

JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

Any reason not to just adopt the contributor covenant?

http://contributor-covenant.org/

[ just a few comments on specific points ]

"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
>> 2. The CoC is not about being offended. The act of being offended is
>> purely a recipient response and usually the offended individual is more
>> interested in being a victim than moving forward.

> Too defensive; not needed in the code of conduct.

Agreed, let's avoid defensiveness here.  There's not much advantage to
this whole exercise unless we can be welcoming rather than dismissive.

>> 4. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists,
>> IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be construed as a violation
>> of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee.

> Too specific, covered by #1. Also, no definition of "CoC committee".

If the CoC is to mean anything at all, there will have to be some sort
of enforcement mechanism.  But I suggest strongly that we leave that out
of consideration for now, and focus just on what the conduct expectations
are.

[ FWIW, the core committee has always understood that part of our mandate
was disciplinary actions if it came to that.  It mostly hasn't; but if
a CoC becomes reality, the natural thing would be that it would fall to
core to enforce it. ]

>> 5. The CoC is only about interaction with the PostgreSQL community. Your
>> private and public lives outside of the PostgreSQL community are your own.

> Needed? I know part of a code of conduct is stating the obvious, but...

The Opal situation that was mentioned upthread seemed to me to be
interesting in part because there was a question of whether a person
was acting, outside the Opal community, in a way that others might take
to represent that community.  (I'm not stating that as fact, just saying
that there was a suggestion of it.)  I do not know where to draw those
lines exactly, and I'm not sure that drawing a bright line is feasible.
But it's a lot easier to say "your public life is your own" when you
are not a well-known member of a community.  When you are, well, your
public persona is partly intertwined with that community, and you can't
just turn that connection on and off.

            regards, tom lane

Jim,
> That has nothing to do with the Code of Conduct, though.  The community accepting Tom saying "no" to Feature X is
vastlydifferent than the community not calling Tom out for being mean.   
> The CoC is about the later situation and not the prior; and the community should call Tom out. (I'm sure you're a
greatperson, Tom, sorry you're the example being used here.) 

Let me reiterate that YES it does.  The reason is that this is a Contributor Code of Conduct, so covers whether and how
youaccept a piece of code. 
In certain gang of 10 that has not contributed anything to our project can argue that you took person X over person Y's
implementationbecause person Y is black and you are racist.   
If everyone is equal -- how are you going to fight that?

In that case, you would judge the opinion of someone who has worked more with the PostgreSQL code base
than some random person off the street.  I've seen this happen with that Contributor Code of Conduct

http://contributor-covenant.org/

(It's very ugly when it happens).


> Now the whole n-or-b thing gets into obvious not helpful dialogue
> which is not helpful.  I'm sure anyone would agree that if Tom called
> me a nigger, it's not helpful to our communication, and you should
> therefore tell him to shut-up regardless who he is.

> So then why call him more valued? It doesn't matter in this context. Why even bring it up. On technical matters,
someonecloser to the issue is often a better arbiter of the evidence, but in matters of interpersonal interactions, no
oneshould be held above another person. 

Tom was just an example.  Yes someone closer to the problem would be better and Tom of course would delegate.  My point
ispeople in our community  are more important to us than strangers. 
Let's say you have 1000 people come and attack you off the street(this is how those SJW's work BTW and why they are so
bigon that line "It's your responsibility to oust your project maintainers").  If you consider their opinions equal to
thosewho have put sweat into the project, they will crush you. 
A Coc is not only to make new-comers feel welcome, but to protect our long-estabilished project members from marauders.



>> While we do consider people's feelings, we weigh that against the
>> effort of changing long understood terminology and the psychological
>> trauma such changes would cause for the large majority of people who
>> are not as sensitive to the usage.
>>
>> What psychological trauma? From changing terms? Are you crazy? (See
>> for
>> that you'd like to the CoC to tell me why that wasn't an appropriate
>> way to express my disbelief that someone would equate a change of term
>> to psychological trauma.
>>
>> Think about if all your life when you've been talking about
>> replication you've been using master/slave, and someone says from now
>> on, It's leader/follower.
>>
>> So now in every conference you go to you need to catch yourself when
>> you are saying Master/Slave   oops I meant to say Leader / Follower.
>>
>> To me that's psychological trauma.  It's the same psychological trauma
>> I had to face being born a left-handed and being forced to write with
>> my right-hand.

> But it's still not trauma, where is the trauma? Something like Master/Slave to Primary/Replica (which IMHO is a more
descriptiveterm 
> anyway) would be a long-term, gradual change. In all honesty no one will care when you slip up because they'll
understandit's a change in progress. I just don't see the trauma. 

> Jim

Okay trauma was a bit too dramatic.

How about this:

While we do consider people's feelings, we weigh that against the
Time and effort of changing long understood terminology that a large majority of people are used to.
Since it's less costly to change new terms, we are more likely to accept changes to newer terminology than changes to
longestablished industry terminology. 

Josh,
> tl;dr;

> * Modified #2 to be less harsh.
> * Modified #3 with TGL and James comments
> * Did not remove examples as I believe they are vital to the success

> I saw Regina's post, I believe it is good for context but I also believe that something concise and to the point is
thebetter path. 

> PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC):

> 1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
collaborativeplace for any person who is willing to contribute in a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative way. 

I don't know what your idea is of being "respectful and collaborative", but if dismissing my Coc because it's longer
thanyour Coc and not even asking for comments  is your idea of collaboration, then I think we have a big problem. 

Your repeat of terms in the beginning and the end looks really weird too.


Thanks,
Regina

Sorry. I just saw the reference to this in the related thread.

>> That has nothing to do with the Code of Conduct, though.
>> The community accepting Tom saying "no" to Feature X is
>> vastly different than the community not calling Tom out
>> for being mean.
>> The CoC is about the later situation and not the prior;
>> and the community should call Tom out. (I'm sure you're
>> a great person, Tom, sorry you're the example being used
>> here.)
>
> Let me reiterate that YES it does.  The reason is that this
> is a Contributor Code of Conduct, so covers whether and how
> you accept a piece of code.

No, no it's not. It's about interpersonal interactions, not technical
decisions.

> In certain gang of 10 that has not contributed anything to our
> project can argue that you took person X over person Y's
> implementation because person Y is black and you are racist.
> If everyone is equal -- how are you going to fight that?

The same way I would argue with you if you called me sexist for not
liking your ideas? I'm not understanding your point. Why is this any
different than someone calling someone else a racist? The project
backing Tom's decision has nothing to do with responding to Tom being
called a racist. Moreover if the project backs Tom's decision on a
technical basis, the attacker isn't going to get very far with relief
here. If the attacker goes public, we point people at the exchange that
happened where Tom has presumably already discussed the reasons that the
patch/feature/&c isn't being accepted.

>> Now the whole n-or-b thing gets into obvious not helpful dialogue
>> which is not helpful.  I'm sure anyone would agree that if Tom called
>> me a nigger, it's not helpful to our communication, and you should
>> therefore tell him to shut-up regardless who he is.
>
>> So then why call him more valued? It doesn't matter in this context.
>> Why even bring it up. On technical matters, someone closer to the
>> issue is often a better arbiter of the evidence, but in matters of
>> interpersonal interactions, no one should be held above another
>> person.
>
> Tom was just an example.  Yes someone closer to the problem would be
> better and Tom of course would delegate.  My point is people in our
> community  are more important to us than strangers.  Let's say you
> have 1000 people come and attack you off the street(this is how those
> SJW's work BTW and why they are so big on that line "It's your
> responsibility to oust your project maintainers").  If you consider
> their opinions equal to those who have put sweat into the project,
> they will crush you.  A Coc is not only to make new-comers feel
> welcome, but to protect our long-estabilished project members from
> marauders.

I don't think I understand your point. So I get 100 friends to come here
and ask for Tom to be outed, we ask for the reason and when they don't
produce a valid one, nothing happens because none of us have any power.
When it comes to committing and governance, there _is_ a hierarchy, and
power is concentrated with a small group. The CoC isn't a place to
discuss how our development structure works. That small group of people
has no more rights against being attacked than anyone else.

Core Comitters, while extremely important to the project technically,
deserve the same respect we expect everyone to show to everyone else.
The CoC is about that respect, not settling technical disputes.

> While we do consider people's feelings, we weigh that against the Time
> and effort of changing long understood terminology that a large
> majority of people are used to.  Since it's less costly to change new
> terms, we are more likely to accept changes to newer terminology than
> changes to long established industry terminology.

I'm not sure how we're on topic anymore, but "it's costly to change our
signage, we're going to continue to keep up the Nigger- and White- Only
signs above the bathroom. I hope you understand." isn't a good argument.

Moreover, I just don't believe they're actually good terms as they're
not really descriptive unless you already know what they mean, but
that's off topic.

Jim

>  If the attacker goes public, we point people at the exchange that happened where Tom has presumably already
discussedthe reasons that the patch/feature/&c isn't being accepted. 

If someone wanted to out someone, they would study them carefully.  They would find Tom's buttons and push them.
They will show proof of Tom saying fuck you trans thing (probably something worse) and all that and it would  be a bad
reflectionon Tom and our community. 
It's because they don't have a Coc that Tom is such a jerk.  They let the power get to his head.
They would have proof is my point in an email trail.

Luckily I think Tom doesn't have many visible buttons to push, but others in our community do.
Anyrate I think it's looking more like a Coc will hurt us more than do us good.  This is beginning to feel too much
likeHighschool Lincoln-douglass debating which I never enjoyed. 
I just want to get back to programming something useful.


> I don't think I understand your point. So I get 100 friends to come here and ask for Tom to be outed, we ask for the
reasonand when they don't produce a valid one, nothing happens because none of us have any power. 
They will ask, they'll point at a random link.  Like this one -
https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200

You'll be too lazy to read it and assume they read it and they are right.  Tom will be persecuted for some link
everyonewas too lazy to read. 
News of Tom's jerkiness would spread across the internet like a virus.
The jerk think would be echoed by everyone until everyone believes it and takes it to heart. "Tom is a big jerk. How
canthe PostgreSQL project allow such a jerk to be running the show." 
Tom will feel bad and think - "No good deed goes unpunished", he'll step down.

THE END


Thanks,
Regina

>  If the attacker goes public, we point people at the exchange that happened where Tom has presumably already discussed the reasons that the patch/feature/&c isn't being accepted.

If someone wanted to out someone, they would study them carefully.  They would find Tom's buttons and push them.
They will show proof of Tom saying fuck you trans thing (probably something worse) and all that and it would  be a bad reflection on Tom and our community.
It's because they don't have a Coc that Tom is such a jerk.  They let the power get to his head.
They would have proof is my point in an email trail.  

Luckily I think Tom doesn't have many visible buttons to push, but others in our community do.
Anyrate I think it's looking more like a Coc will hurt us more than do us good.  This is beginning to feel too much like Highschool Lincoln-douglass debating which I never enjoyed.
I just want to get back to programming something useful.

> I don't think I understand your point. So I get 100 friends to come here and ask for Tom to be outed, we ask for the reason and when they don't produce a valid one, nothing happens because none of us have any power.
They will ask, they'll point at a random link.  Like this one - 
https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200

You'll be too lazy to read it and assume they read it and they are right.  Tom will be persecuted for some link everyone was too lazy to read.
News of Tom's jerkiness would spread across the internet like a virus.  
The jerk think would be echoed by everyone until everyone believes it and takes it to heart. "Tom is a big jerk. How can the PostgreSQL project allow such a jerk to be running the show."
Tom will feel bad and think - "No good deed goes unpunished", he'll step down.

THE END


Thanks,
Regina

> On Jan 12, 2016, at 12:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> [ just a few comments on specific points ]
>
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
>>> 2. The CoC is not about being offended. The act of being offended is
>>> purely a recipient response and usually the offended individual is more
>>> interested in being a victim than moving forward.
>
>> Too defensive; not needed in the code of conduct.
>
> Agreed, let's avoid defensiveness here.  There's not much advantage to
> this whole exercise unless we can be welcoming rather than dismissive.
>

How about a simple statement?

2. We expect people to be both tolerant and respectful of others.

Neil

Tl;dr;

* Removed specific examples and reworded #3 to be more concise

PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC):

1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing
a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person
who is willing to contribute in a safe, respectful, productive and
collaborative way.

2. The CoC is not about being offended. As with any diverse community,
anyone can get offended at anything.

3. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
of personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any kind.

4. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists,
IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be construed as a violation
of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee.

5. The CoC is only about interaction with the PostgreSQL community. Your
private and public lives outside of the PostgreSQL community are your own.

--
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.

On 01/12/2016 08:17 AM, Neil Tiffin wrote:
>
>> On Jan 12, 2016, at 12:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>> [ just a few comments on specific points ]
>>
>> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
>>>> 2. The CoC is not about being offended. The act of being offended is
>>>> purely a recipient response and usually the offended individual is more
>>>> interested in being a victim than moving forward.
>>
>>> Too defensive; not needed in the code of conduct.
>>
>> Agreed, let's avoid defensiveness here.  There's not much advantage to
>> this whole exercise unless we can be welcoming rather than dismissive.
>>
>
> How about a simple statement?
>
> 2. We expect people to be both tolerant and respectful of others.
>
> Neil

For those who are new to the party, the actual latest revision of this
is over on $SUBJECT: WIP: CoC v4

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.

On 01/12/2016 12:16 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

>     4. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing
>     lists, IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be construed as a
>     violation of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC
>     committee.
>
>
> Then we need to define what is "Coc committee".

Yes but I believe that can be done AFTER...

>
>
>     5. The CoC is only about interaction with the PostgreSQL community.
>     Your private and public lives outside of the PostgreSQL community
>     are your own.
>
>
>
> * We should specify here legal place of CoC, say, URL on postgresql.org
> <http://postgresql.org>
> * We should translate it to other languages

Agreed.

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.

tl;dr;

* Moved #2 to #3 and #3 to #2
* Added wording for assuming positive intent to #2

PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC):

1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing
a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person
who is willing to contribute in a safe, respectful, productive and
collaborative way.

2. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
of personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any kind.

3. The CoC is not about being offended. One should always assume good
intentions. As with any diverse community, anyone can get offended at
anything.

4. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists,
IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be construed as a violation
of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee.

5. The CoC is only about interaction with the PostgreSQL community. Your
private and public lives outside of the PostgreSQL community are your own.



--
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.

I think that this is fairly close to something that would make
sense, but there is sort of a weirdness in the CoC referring to
itself in the 3rd person.  It sound more like an argument for
*having* a CoC than the document itself.

I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's
draft to something that seems more "natural" to me.  At the same
time, I'll try to incorporate other comments, like Tom's comment
about enforcement mechanisms and the gray areas in members of the
community communicating in public forums.


On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) Code of Conduct (CoC):
>
> 1. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing a
> safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is
> willing to contribute in a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative
> way.
>
> 2. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of
> personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any kind.
>
> 3. The CoC is not about being offended. One should always assume good
> intentions. As with any diverse community, anyone can get offended at
> anything.
>
> 4. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists, IRC
> etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be construed as a violation of the
> CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee.
>
> 5. The CoC is only about interaction with the PostgreSQL community. Your
> private and public lives outside of the PostgreSQL community are your own.



== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==

This document is intended to provide community guidelines for
creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in
a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative way.

* To maintain a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative
environment all participants must ensure that their language and
actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any
kind.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.  Consider that due to
language and cultural differences, something may be intended in a
benign or helpful way, even if some participants initially see a
possible interpretation which is otherwise.

* All participants must avoid sustained disruption of the
collaborative space (mailing lists, IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL
events.

* There is a distinction between words and actions taken inside the
community and words and actions outside community communication
channels and events, but there is a gray area when using public
forums or social media where a person identifies as a member of
this community.  Members of the community, especially those with a
high profile within the community, should be mindful of this and
avoid anything which might create an unwelcoming or hostile
attitude toward the community in such venues.

* Participants who feel that they have not been treated in
accordance with this Code of Conduct may want to try to sort things
out in the forum where there was a perception of a problem; asking
for a clarification or an apology either in a public discussion
context or privately can often resolve an issue quickly to
everyone's satisfaction.  Where this fails, the Core Team is
responsible for determining what, if any, action is appropriate.
The core team is listed, with a link to the purpose of team, at the
top of the community's "Contributor Profiles" page:
http://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/



To me, this reads more like the document itself.  I hope I have
done justice to Josh's points as well as Tom's, although I would
bet there are a number of people on the list that can improve on my
effort here.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 01/12/2016 02:43 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I think that this is fairly close to something that would make
> sense, but there is sort of a weirdness in the CoC referring to
> itself in the 3rd person.  It sound more like an argument for
> *having* a CoC than the document itself.
>
> I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's
> draft to something that seems more "natural" to me.  At the same
> time, I'll try to incorporate other comments, like Tom's comment
> about enforcement mechanisms and the gray areas in members of the
> community communicating in public forums.

On Tom's comment, I was waiting until we have a firmed up version. On
the communicating in public forums, I must have missed that, do you have
a reference?

What isn't shown here, is that I was writing in a similar fashion that
you would write a resolution for a NP. Consider (very rough):

WHEREAS

The PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) would like to insure a
safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment for all.

PGDG Resolves that

1. There shall be a Code of Conduct governing behaviour for the PGDG
community.

2. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing
a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person
who is willing to contribute in a safe, respectful, productive and
collaborative way.

3. The CoC is not about being offended. As with any diverse community,
anyone can get offended at anything.

4. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free
of personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any kind.

5. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists,
IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be construed as a violation
of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee.

6. The CoC is only about interaction with the PostgreSQL community. Your
private and public lives outside of the PostgreSQL community are your own.



--
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.

On 01/12/2016 02:43 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:

I guess I should scroll all the way down. :P


>
> To me, this reads more like the document itself.  I hope I have
> done justice to Josh's points as well as Tom's, although I would
> bet there are a number of people on the list that can improve on my
> effort here.

I read your whole document. It is not badly written and I would agree it
does read a bit more like a lot of the CoCs out there. My critique would
be that it adds words for the sake of adding words. The more words the
more ambiguity and the more nits to pick.

As we have all appeared to coalesce around v5, I would suggest that we
stick with it or gently modify v5 up to the point that it is something
that sticks.

Sincerely,

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.

The small problem with your version, Joshua, is that the appropriate action is not specified.

Sorry to jump in in the middle. I have not read the comments fully.

Elein Mustain
elein@varlena.com


> On Jan 12, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/12/2016 02:43 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I think that this is fairly close to something that would make
>> sense, but there is sort of a weirdness in the CoC referring to
>> itself in the 3rd person.  It sound more like an argument for
>> *having* a CoC than the document itself.
>>
>> I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's
>> draft to something that seems more "natural" to me.  At the same
>> time, I'll try to incorporate other comments, like Tom's comment
>> about enforcement mechanisms and the gray areas in members of the
>> community communicating in public forums.
>
> On Tom's comment, I was waiting until we have a firmed up version. On the communicating in public forums, I must have
missedthat, do you have a reference? 
>
> What isn't shown here, is that I was writing in a similar fashion that you would write a resolution for a NP.
Consider(very rough): 
>
> WHEREAS
>
> The PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG) would like to insure a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative
environmentfor all. 
>
> PGDG Resolves that
>
> 1. There shall be a Code of Conduct governing behaviour for the PGDG community.
>
> 2. The CoC is to provide community guidelines for creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
collaborativeplace for any person who is willing to contribute in a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative way. 
>
> 3. The CoC is not about being offended. As with any diverse community, anyone can get offended at anything.
>
> 4. A safe, respectful, productive and collaborative environment is free of personal attacks and disparaging remarks
ofany kind. 
>
> 5. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists, IRC etc..) or other PostgreSQL events shall be
construedas a violation of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee. 
>
> 6. The CoC is only about interaction with the PostgreSQL community. Your private and public lives outside of the
PostgreSQLcommunity are your own. 
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

Elein <elein@varlena.com> writes:
> The small problem with your version, Joshua, is that the appropriate action is not specified.

I think at this point we're just trying to agree on a statement as
to what actions are acceptable or not.  After that we can get into
what is the enforcement mechanism; but that's a separable concern
and I believe we're best off keeping it separate for the moment.

(FWIW, I would prefer to see specific remedies mostly left to the
discretion of the enforcers.  There is nothing more broken than
mandatory sentencing rules.  But, really, one thing at a time...)

            regards, tom lane

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On 01/12/2016 02:43 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> To me, this reads more like the document itself.  I hope I have
>> done justice to Josh's points as well as Tom's, although I would
>> bet there are a number of people on the list that can improve on my
>> effort here.

> I read your whole document. It is not badly written and I would agree it
> does read a bit more like a lot of the CoCs out there. My critique would
> be that it adds words for the sake of adding words. The more words the
> more ambiguity and the more nits to pick.

> As we have all appeared to coalesce around v5, I would suggest that we
> stick with it or gently modify v5 up to the point that it is something
> that sticks.

Um, you may have coalesced around v5, but I'm not sure there's consensus
there.  I agree with Kevin that his version looks a lot more like a real
CoC.  His is surely still amenable to some editing, but there are also
things in your version that we can do without.  Particularly the "not
about being offended" line.  That's pretty defensive and unwelcoming,
IMO, and that isn't the image we want to project here.

            regards, tom lane

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's
> draft to something that seems more "natural" to me.

Minor (or not?) comment:

> * To maintain a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative
> environment all participants must ensure that their language and
> actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any
> kind.

The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid
technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, and
Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points.  "Of any
kind" doesn't improve that either.  I'm on board with the "personal
attacks" part.  Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be better?

            regards, tom lane

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:10:43 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's
> > draft to something that seems more "natural" to me.
>
> Minor (or not?) comment:
>
> > * To maintain a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative
> > environment all participants must ensure that their language and
> > actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any
> > kind.
>
> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid
> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, and
> Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points.  "Of any
> kind" doesn't improve that either.  I'm on board with the "personal
> attacks" part.  Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be better?

When I used to write fiction, I met regularly with a writing group.
We had a very explicit rule: criticize the manuscript, NOT the author.

I feel this applies ... and possibly could be worded to that effect,
"Critical remarks regarding patches and/or technical work are
necessary to ensure a quality product; however, critical remarks
directed at individuals are not constructive and therefore not
acceptable." or something ...

--
Bill Moran

On 01/12/2016 06:41 PM, Elein wrote:
> The small problem with your version, Joshua, is that the appropriate action is not specified.
>
> Sorry to jump in in the middle. I have not read the comments fully.
>

It is all good Elein. The lack of appropriate action is purposeful. The
idea is that we decide on a CoC. Then we decide on the next step. Under
current structure that would fall to core. I am of the opinion that the
"action" that the committee decides would be with exception to -core,
with -core being the final (board of directors vote). However, I think
that can all be solved after wording is decided.

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.

On 01/12/2016 06:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Elein <elein@varlena.com> writes:
>> The small problem with your version, Joshua, is that the appropriate action is not specified.
>
> I think at this point we're just trying to agree on a statement as
> to what actions are acceptable or not.  After that we can get into
> what is the enforcement mechanism; but that's a separable concern
> and I believe we're best off keeping it separate for the moment.
>
> (FWIW, I would prefer to see specific remedies mostly left to the
> discretion of the enforcers.  There is nothing more broken than
> mandatory sentencing rules.  But, really, one thing at a time...)\

Exactly. +1

>
>             regards, tom lane
>


--
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.

On 01/12/2016 07:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> On 01/12/2016 02:43 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> To me, this reads more like the document itself.  I hope I have
>>> done justice to Josh's points as well as Tom's, although I would
>>> bet there are a number of people on the list that can improve on my
>>> effort here.
>
>> I read your whole document. It is not badly written and I would agree it
>> does read a bit more like a lot of the CoCs out there. My critique would
>> be that it adds words for the sake of adding words. The more words the
>> more ambiguity and the more nits to pick.
>
>> As we have all appeared to coalesce around v5, I would suggest that we
>> stick with it or gently modify v5 up to the point that it is something
>> that sticks.
>
> Um, you may have coalesced around v5, but I'm not sure there's consensus
> there.  I agree with Kevin that his version looks a lot more like a real
> CoC.  His is surely still amenable to some editing, but there are also
> things in your version that we can do without.  Particularly the "not
> about being offended" line.  That's pretty defensive and unwelcoming,
> IMO, and that isn't the image we want to project here.

Even with the V5? There is a pretty good point there IMO. It is very
easy to get offended over really stupid things (including just standard
miscommunication).

That said, I actually don't have a problem taking that point out and
making that V6.

JD

>
>             regards, tom lane
>


--
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.

On 01/12/2016 07:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> writes:
>> I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's
>> draft to something that seems more "natural" to me.
>
> Minor (or not?) comment:
>
>> * To maintain a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative
>> environment all participants must ensure that their language and
>> actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any
>> kind.
>
> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid
> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, and
> Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points.  "Of any
> kind" doesn't improve that either.  I'm on board with the "personal
> attacks" part.  Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be better?

Hrm, I see your point but the definition of disparaging is:

expressing the opinion that something is of little worth; derogatory.

I guess if we got into a VI vs Emacs argument the CoC could apply but
wouldn't that also be a good thing?

JD

>
>             regards, tom lane
>


--
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.

On 13 January 2016 at 03:10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid
> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, and
> Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points.  "Of any
> kind" doesn't improve that either.  I'm on board with the "personal
> attacks" part.  Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be better?

IME attacks (even if they are purely technical) on one's code can be
as hurtful and equally as likely to result in alienation as personal
attacks. I'm not sure how you would word it but just concentrating on
personal attacks leaves open the sort of bullying that has been seen
in other projects.

Perhaps you could add something about valuing contributions from and
making allowances for those with less expertise. I know that's sort-of
implied by the "any person who is willing to contribute" phrase but I
would say that being explicit about it is more likely to encourage
non-contributors to contribute than what's been arrived at so far.

Geoff

> On 13 January 2016 at 03:10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid
>> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y,
>> and Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points.
>> "Of any kind" doesn't improve that either.  I'm on board with the
>> "personal attacks" part.  Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be better?

> IME attacks (even if they are purely technical) on one's code can be as hurtful and equally as likely to result in
alienationas personal attacks. I'm not sure how you would word it but just concentrating on personal attacks leaves
openthe sort of bullying that has been seen in other projects. 

> Perhaps you could add something about valuing contributions from and making allowances for those with less expertise.


> I know that's sort-of implied by the "any person who is willing to contribute" phrase but I would say that being
explicitabout it is more likely to encourage non-contributors to contribute than what's been arrived at so far. 

> Geoff

I agree it's hard to even talk about just technical without hurting someone's feelings, but I really don't think there
ismuch we can do about that. Except linking to a separate document about how to get newbie help. 
I think that kind of thing would be better handled by mentoring sessions (like a big developer taking you under their
wings)than trying to deal with that sensitivity in a Coc. 
In fact people would take advantage of the situation if you say things like  "less expertise",
because then they'd expect preferential treatment because they don't know C and be constantly badgering everybody for
help.

Thanks,
Regina

On 13 January 2016 at 13:05, Regina Obe <lr@pcorp.us> wrote:
>> Perhaps you could add something about valuing contributions from and making allowances for those with less
expertise.
>
> I agree it's hard to even talk about just technical without hurting someone's feelings,

I don't believe that it is: it just involves a little empathy.
Remember how you felt the first time you posted a patch to a system
you didn't know, or remember that people can easily misunderstand how
stuff works, especially in a codebase as complex and large as this
one, and that they're giving up the few hours a week that they can
spare from their busy lives and aren't being paid to do it. Start out
by (maybe just quietly, in your head) thanking that person for their
efforts, before you explain gently how the work they've generously
submitted can be improved. Just putting yourself in that frame of mind
makes it more likely that you won't stomp over someone's feelings
because their 30 line patch that they spent 2 months building doesn't
take into account that some mechanism they've never heard of and isn't
referenced anywhere in the code they've modified relies on the
specific way the code worked before.

> because then they'd expect preferential treatment because they don't know C and be constantly badgering everybody for
help.

Someone coming on to the mailing lists and asking for help with newbie
stuff so they can spend their own free time improving the product? How
dare they! :p

Geoff

On 13 January 2016 at 13:55, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
> People *can* take offense when you say their code is not good enough,
> particularly when it is true,

Well I would hope that you wouldn't say so if it wasn't. :)

My point is that most people won't be posting code here going "this is
a bit crap, but I'll post it anyway". Chances are, especially if
they're new, they will have checked and double-checked it beforehand.
Any things that are "not good enough", as you say, are likely to be
things that they couldn't really be expected to have known, given
their limited experience of the codebase.

So all I'm saying is: try to be gentle and encouraging, rather than
blunt and critical.

> But I would hope that if the focus is on
> improvement of the software the this becomes at least a bit less of a
> problem..

Yeah, telling someone "it's for your own good" has always been shown to help. :)

G

On 13 January 2016 at 14:15, Regina Obe <lr@pcorp.us> wrote:
> He can also make fun of my tabbing style and say  "What's wrong with your
> editor? Perhaps you need to use a different one or change the settings"

You're right, what we've really been missing all these years is an
editor flamewar :)

Geoff

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 07:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> writes:

>>> * To maintain a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative
>>> environment all participants must ensure that their language and
>>> actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any
>>> kind.
>>
>> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid
>> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, and
>> Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points.  "Of any
>> kind" doesn't improve that either.  I'm on board with the "personal
>> attacks" part.  Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be better?
>
> Hrm, I see your point but the definition of disparaging is:
>
> expressing the opinion that something is of little worth; derogatory.

Below is a modified version of what I posted, attempting to improve
it based on further thoughts of my own as well as suggestions from
Tom, JD, and Bill.  I see a lot to like in the variation proposed
by Chris, but wasn't sure quite how to meld that with this.  I've
left off the enforcement part for now.

I still feel it is more productive to discuss a proposed document
than proposed language for some "motion to adopt".  (I'm not sure
where such a motion would be made and adopted.)



== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==

This document is intended to provide community guidelines for
creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in
a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative way.  It applies
to all "collaborative space", which is defined as community
communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted
patches, commit comments, etc.) and to public events (such as
meetings and conferences) which are associated with the PostgreSQL
community.  Private communications which result from words or
actions in the collaborative space should also conform to the
standards stated here.

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.  Critical
remarks regarding patches and/or technical work are necessary to
ensure a quality product; however, critical remarks directed at
individuals are not constructive and therefore not acceptable.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.  Consider that due to
language and cultural differences, something may be intended in a
benign or helpful way, even if some participants initially see a
possible interpretation which is otherwise.

* Participants must avoid sustained disruption of the collaborative
space, or any pattern of behavior which could reasonably be
considered harassment.

There is a distinction between words and actions taken within the
community and words and actions outside community communication
channels and events, but there is a gray area when using public
forums or social media where a person identifies as a member of
this community.  Members of the community, especially those with a
high profile within the community, should be mindful of this and
avoid saying or doing anything in such venues which might create an
unwelcoming or hostile attitude toward the community.



--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> writes:
> I still feel it is more productive to discuss a proposed document
> than proposed language for some "motion to adopt".

Agreed.  We're trying to write a document, not a document about a
document.

> ... It applies
> to all "collaborative space", which is defined as community
> communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted
> patches, commit comments, etc.) and to public events (such as
> meetings and conferences) which are associated with the PostgreSQL
> community.  Private communications which result from words or
> actions in the collaborative space should also conform to the
> standards stated here.

Magnus pointed out to me that (1) appropriate behavior in the virtual
space is not necessarily the same as appropriate behavior in physical
contexts such as meetings, and (2) most conferences already have their
own CoCs, which we should not be attempting to override.  So I'm
inclined to think that this CoC should be specifically about on-line
interaction, and explicitly leave it to conference organizers to set up
CoCs that work for their situations.

My general reaction to the rest of this is that it's got the right
idea, but it could be cut to about half the length and be better
off for that.  Short and sweet is the way, IMO.

            regards, tom lane

On 01/13/2016 08:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> My general reaction to the rest of this is that it's got the right
> idea, but it could be cut to about half the length and be better
> off for that.  Short and sweet is the way, IMO.

+1


Less words, more point.

--
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.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:15:45 -0500
"Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us> wrote:


> For example if Tom makes some snide remark like "Do all Bostonians
> program this way?"

Why not simply discuss the code, with no value judgment about the
coder?

"The strcpy() in the foo() function can cause intermittent problems and
open an attack route. Why not use strncpy() instead?"

Of course we all know there are some people who prefer to say something
like the following:

"Really? I mean really? People still use strcpy() in 2016? All but the
dullest know that opens an attack route."

For some reason, a significant percentage of people just LOVE to get
judgmental about the other guy's work product, rather than simply
showing a better way.

To me it's simple...

Disallow "You <something bad>"

Disallow "Your code <something bad>"

Encourage "It would be better if your code <something factual> because
<technological reason>."

Steve

Steve Litt
January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28

Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> writes:
> To me it's simple...
> Disallow "You <something bad>"
> Disallow "Your code <something bad>"
> Encourage "It would be better if your code <something factual> because
> <technological reason>."

That's fine as practice, but I don't think we want to get anywhere near
being that detailed in the CoC per se.  If we start trying to write that
sort of rule, the CoC will be multiple pages long and no one will read it.
(I thought Kevin's last draft was already too long.)

            regards, tom lane

On 01/13/2016 01:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> writes:
>> To me it's simple...
>> Disallow "You <something bad>"
>> Disallow "Your code <something bad>"
>> Encourage "It would be better if your code <something factual> because
>> <technological reason>."
>
> That's fine as practice, but I don't think we want to get anywhere near
> being that detailed in the CoC per se.  If we start trying to write that
> sort of rule, the CoC will be multiple pages long and no one will read it.
> (I thought Kevin's last draft was already too long.)

+1

>
>             regards, tom lane
>
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

On 01/13/2016 06:00 PM, Berend Tober wrote:

> Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will
> adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do
> revision control. Can you people start a github project or something to
> develope your ideas and come back when you have something solid, please.
> This thread is creating a lot of spam.

The community discussion around this is not spam.

JD

>
>
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

On 01/14/2016 08:24 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 01/13/2016 06:00 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
>
>> Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will
>> adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do
>> revision control. Can you people start a github project or something to
>> develope your ideas and come back when you have something solid, please.
>> This thread is creating a lot of spam.
>
> The community discussion around this is not spam.

Still, moving it off-list to a repo or the Wiki is a good idea. Then
those that care about this can wordsmith to their hearts content.

>
> JD
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Updated.

Tl;dr;

  * Removed excess wording
  * Removed non-.org controlled spaces in first paragraph
  * Added explicit discussion on explicit problem with last paragraph of
Kevin's last version.

== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==

This document is intended to provide community guidelines for
creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in
a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative way.  It applies
to all "collaborative space", which is defined as community
communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted
patches, commit comments, etc.).

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.

* Participants must avoid sustained disruption of the collaborative
space, or any pattern of behavior which could reasonably be
considered harassment.


=== END ===

I have serious problems with the below[1]. My main concern is this and I
am going to use real people to
illustrate the issue:

  * I am a left leaning realist with some libretarian leanings.
    (I voted for Obama)

  * Andrew D is a left leaning lefist
    (He might vote for Sanders)

We are both high profile contributors and often have public discourse
on who is right or wrong. This is good. It is fun and we poke at
each other but we continue to respect each other.

However, there are people in this community that are far right
and far left. It is not the responsibility of .Org to determine
who is right or wrong there. Period.

Now, how does this apply (as an example)? There are very loud people in
this community who are pro-gay marriage and they are unable to respect
those who don't agree with the position. There are also those who are
anti-gay marriage that do the same.

If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that. I am
100% certain the below will cause issues. We need different wording
if we are going to take that into account.


1. There is a distinction between words and actions taken within the
community and words and actions outside community communication
channels and events, but there is a gray area when using public
forums or social media where a person identifies as a member of
this community.  Members of the community, especially those with a
high profile within the community, should be mindful of this and
avoid saying or doing anything in such venues which might create an
unwelcoming or hostile attitude toward the community.

--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

On 01/14/2016 08:30 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 08:24 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On 01/13/2016 06:00 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
>>
>>> Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will
>>> adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do
>>> revision control. Can you people start a github project or something to
>>> develope your ideas and come back when you have something solid, please.
>>> This thread is creating a lot of spam.
>>
>> The community discussion around this is not spam.
>
> Still, moving it off-list to a repo or the Wiki is a good idea. Then
> those that care about this can wordsmith to their hearts content.

Meh. Those that don't want to read the thread don't have to.

Sincerely,

JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
> a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that.

I completely agree with you, unfortunately there are enough people who
are so militant about their particular beliefs that they can make life
very difficult for both the individual and the organisation they
represents (cf eg Brendan Eich).

If you are well known (outside of the community) as representing
postgres then I'm afraid extreme opinions will reflect on postgres,
whether you like it or not. On the flip side, I imagine that being
that well-known brings positives (job offers, paid - or at least
expenses-paid in nice locations - speaking engagements etc) in return.

Geoff

On 01/14/2016 08:53 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
>> a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that.
>
> I completely agree with you, unfortunately there are enough people who
> are so militant about their particular beliefs that they can make life
> very difficult for both the individual and the organisation they
> represents (cf eg Brendan Eich).
>
> If you are well known (outside of the community) as representing
> postgres then I'm afraid extreme opinions will reflect on postgres,
> whether you like it or not. On the flip side, I imagine that being
> that well-known brings positives (job offers, paid - or at least
> expenses-paid in nice locations - speaking engagements etc) in return.

Right but here is the rub. Being anti-gay marriage isn't an extreme
opinion. It is a minority opinion for sure but it is certainly not extreme.

Another issue, consider the statement:

"We do not need more women in the community"

Some will say, "Well yeah, that's true."

Others will say, "You are sexist, you violate the CoC"

We have both of those in this community, and I would argue the "others"
are actually the ones violating the CoC. They are personally disparaging
someone for a perfectly valid opinion.

Sincerely,

JD

P.S. before too many people get their hackles up remember that the word
need does not imply want or vice versa.


--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

> On Jan 14, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> Now, how does this apply (as an example)? There are very loud people in this community who are pro-gay marriage and
theyare unable to respect those who don't agree with the position. There are also those who are anti-gay marriage that
dothe same. 
>
> If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
> a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that. I am
> 100% certain the below will cause issues. We need different wording
> if we are going to take that into account.

The community needs to decide between the following:

1. Does it want to eliminate participation from people with strong but opposing views.

or

2. Does it want to enforce respect and tolerance that allows people with strong but opposing views to contribute.

I would rather have #2 because I have a strong regard for freedom of speech.  The solution is clearer if this can be
decided.

For 2 a statement that the community respects the rights of people to have opposing or non-popular views as freedom of
speechand since this project is non political we expect a certain amount of tolerance with regards to people’s views
andopinions outside of their work on this project. 

or

>
> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> should always assume good intentions.

Could be.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should be tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views and always assume good intentions.

Neil

On 01/14/2016 09:14 AM, Neil wrote:

> The community needs to decide between the following:
>
> 1. Does it want to eliminate participation from people with strong but opposing views.
>
> or
>
> 2. Does it want to enforce respect and tolerance that allows people with strong but opposing views to contribute.
>
> I would rather have #2 because I have a strong regard for freedom of speech.  The solution is clearer if this can be
decided.

#2 of course and I don't think the majority would argue with that.

>
> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> should be tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views and always assume good intentions.

Very nice.

JD



--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

On 01/14/2016 09:11 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 08:53 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>> On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
>> wrote:
>>> If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
>>> a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that.
>>
>> I completely agree with you, unfortunately there are enough people who
>> are so militant about their particular beliefs that they can make life
>> very difficult for both the individual and the organisation they
>> represents (cf eg Brendan Eich).
>>
>> If you are well known (outside of the community) as representing
>> postgres then I'm afraid extreme opinions will reflect on postgres,
>> whether you like it or not. On the flip side, I imagine that being
>> that well-known brings positives (job offers, paid - or at least
>> expenses-paid in nice locations - speaking engagements etc) in return.
>
> Right but here is the rub. Being anti-gay marriage isn't an extreme
> opinion. It is a minority opinion for sure but it is certainly not extreme.
>
> Another issue, consider the statement:
>
> "We do not need more women in the community"
>
> Some will say, "Well yeah, that's true."
>
> Others will say, "You are sexist, you violate the CoC"
>
> We have both of those in this community, and I would argue the "others"
> are actually the ones violating the CoC. They are personally disparaging
> someone for a perfectly valid opinion.

There is the faulty assumption that the whole CoC movement is based on,
that the individual communities can control the conversation. You start
down this path you have to accept the fact that you are letting the
whole world into community and out of community conversations. I will
leave to others to say whether that is good or bad, but it is a reality
that you will need to deal with. In other words, should a CoC be agreed
upon here, it will end up being subjected to editing from the world at
large and you need to be prepared for that going in directions that you
do not want.

>
> Sincerely,
>
> JD
>
> P.S. before too many people get their hackles up remember that the word
> need does not imply want or vice versa.
>
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On 14 January 2016 at 17:11, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Right but here is the rub. Being anti-gay marriage isn't an extreme opinion.
> It is a minority opinion for sure but it is certainly not extreme.

Well it is - it's an extremity in the range of potential view points.

> Another issue, consider the statement:
>
> "We do not need more women in the community"
>
> Some will say, "Well yeah, that's true."
>
> Others will say, "You are sexist, you violate the CoC"
>
> We have both of those in this community, and I would argue the "others" are
> actually the ones violating the CoC. They are personally disparaging someone
> for a perfectly valid opinion.

Well yes, to say "you are sexist" is violating the CoC, because it's a
personal attack. The correct thing to do is to state that the opinion
is a violation of the CoC, without making any judgement about the
person making that statement :)

Geoff

tl;dr;

  * added being tolerant of opposing views

== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==

This document is intended to provide community guidelines for
creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in
a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative way.  It applies
to all "collaborative space", which is defined as community
communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted
patches, commit comments, etc.).

* We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.

* Participants must avoid sustained disruption of the collaborative
space, or any pattern of behavior which could reasonably be
considered harassment.

--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

On 01/14/2016 09:53 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
>> a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that.

I am not a contributor to Postgresql (tho I have contributed in
small ways to other projects) so my opinion is worth less than 2
cents but...

I strongly agree with the above.

> I completely agree with you, unfortunately there are enough people who
> are so militant about their particular beliefs that they can make life
> very difficult for both the individual and the organisation they
> represents (cf eg Brendan Eich).
>
> If you are well known (outside of the community) as representing
> postgres then I'm afraid extreme opinions will reflect on postgres,
> whether you like it or not.

That can't be helped, people being the way they are.  It seems to
be a sad fact that many people are willing to use their free speech
rights to suppress the free speech rights of others.  But that is
not IMO a good reason to submit to or appease them.

The Postgresql community could mitigate this somewhat by having
a CC that explicitly states that the opinions and expressions of
its "members" do not reflect those of the organization or its
other members.  Disclaimers like this are common in all sorts of
organizations (eg commercial media) that present diverse points of
views.  And the CC itself prohibits off topic and inflammatory
opinions within the community boundaries.

> On the flip side, I imagine that being
> that well-known brings positives (job offers, paid - or at least
> expenses-paid in nice locations - speaking engagements etc) in return.

That trade-off should be decided by the individual involved, not
by the organization.

Hello,

I posted this earlier but ended up breaking my own silly rev scheme. So,
I am going back to my silly rev scheme. Rev 6 it is:

tl;dr;

  * added being tolerant of opposing views
  * Removed excess wording from Grittner's version
  * Removed non-.org controlled spaces in first paragraph

== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==

This document is intended to provide community guidelines for
creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in
a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative way.  It applies
to all "collaborative space", which is defined as community
communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted
patches, commit comments, etc.).

* We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.

* Participants must avoid sustained disruption of the collaborative
space, or any pattern of behavior which could reasonably be
considered harassment.


--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

Please see my two suggestions below.

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: "Neil" <neil@fairwindsoft.com>; "Psql_General (E-mail)"
<pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V6


> Hello,
>
> I posted this earlier but ended up breaking my own silly rev scheme.
> So, I am going back to my silly rev scheme. Rev 6 it is:
>
> tl;dr;
>
>  * added being tolerant of opposing views
>  * Removed excess wording from Grittner's version
>  * Removed non-.org controlled spaces in first paragraph
>
> == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
>
> This document is intended to provide community guidelines for
> creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
> collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in
> a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative way.  It applies
> to all "collaborative space", which is defined as community
> communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted
> patches, commit comments, etc.).
>

It seems to me that the above paragraph is too long, especially
considering that the following points are crisp short single sentences.

Also, why repeat the phrase "safe, respectful, productive, and
collaborative"?

My suggestion -- make two paragraphs:

This document provides community guidelines for
creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
collaborative place. Every contributor is expected to support these
goals.

The guidelines apply to all "collaborative space", which is defined as
community
communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted
patches, commit comments, etc.).

> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
>

I recall someone earlier mentioning the benefit of keeping discussions
on topic.

And it seems to me that that only views actually expressed are of
concern.

So I would offer the following revision:

* We are tolerant of people’s right to express opposing views relevant
to the success of the project.

> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
>
> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> should always assume good intentions.
>
> * Participants must avoid sustained disruption of the collaborative
> space, or any pattern of behavior which could reasonably be
> considered harassment.
>
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
>                      +1-503-667-4564
> PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

tl;dr;

  * Cleaned up first paragraph, making it more succint
  * Reworded last bullet a bit


== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==

This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,
productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to
contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative
space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as
mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

* We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.

* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
pattern of behaviour which could considered harassment will not be
tolerated.

--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

On 01/15/2016 07:41 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> tl;dr;
>
>   * Cleaned up first paragraph, making it more succint
>   * Reworded last bullet a bit
>
>
> == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
>
> This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,
> productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to
> contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative
> space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as
> mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).
>
> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
>
> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
>
> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> should always assume good intentions.
>

* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
tolerated.

Fixed a typo in the above (added word "be").

JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

Joshua and all,

Because of the current political environment we live in, even though I am neither a Muslim nor a Jew I am a Baha'i, I
thinkwe should not discuss religion or politics on this forum. All such topics can be discussed privately.  

Thanks for your efforts.

Best Regards


Farjad


-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake
Sent: 15 January 2016 16:03
To: Neil; Psql_General (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V7

On 01/15/2016 07:41 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> tl;dr;
>
>   * Cleaned up first paragraph, making it more succint
>   * Reworded last bullet a bit
>
>
> == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
>
> This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,
> productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to
> contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all
> "collaborative space", which is defined as community communications
> channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).
>
> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
>
> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free of
> personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
>
> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> should always assume good intentions.
>

* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a pattern of behaviour which could be considered
harassmentwill not be tolerated. 

Fixed a typo in the above (added word "be").

JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
<farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:
> Because of the current political environment we live in, even though I am neither a Muslim nor a Jew I am a Baha'i, I
thinkwe should not discuss religion or politics on this forum. All such topics can be discussed privately. 

Generally off-topic discussions are cut off pretty efficiently
already.  I think this CoC is more to the point of keeping things
civil while discussing the on-topic topics for each forum/list.

On 01/15/2016 09:03 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:
>
> Joshua and all,
>
> Because of the current political environment we live in, even though I am neither a Muslim nor a Jew I am a Baha'i, I
thinkwe should not discuss religion or politics on this forum. All such topics can be discussed privately. 

I am sure most agree with you but that isn't what a CoC is about. It is
about "if" it happens, what is acceptable behaviour.

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

Bill Moran wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:10:43 -0500
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's
>>> draft to something that seems more "natural" to me.
>>
>> Minor (or not?) comment:
>>

Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will
adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do
revision control. Can you people start a github project or something to
develope your ideas and come back when you have something solid, please.
This thread is creating a lot of spam.

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 01/13/2016 06:00 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
>
>> Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will
>> adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do
>> revision control. Can you people start a github project or something to
>> develope your ideas and come back when you have something solid, please.
>> This thread is creating a lot of spam.
>
> The community discussion around this is not spam.

Yes, roger that. Bad choice of words. Surprising I didn't get CoC'd more
severely.