Обсуждение: CoC [Final]
Hello, O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have received no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we can reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft. This final draft incorporates all reasonable feedback I have received as well as rewriting it in a more conversational tone from Kevin Grittner's efforts. == 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. Sincerely, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a > pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be > tolerated. Personally, I was comfortable with the rest of it, but this one made me squirm a little. Could we spin that to say that those behaviors will not be tolerated, versus not tolerating the people? Maybe: * Disruption of the collaborative space or any pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be tolerated. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Joshua D. Drake wrote: > This final draft incorporates all reasonable feedback I have received as > well as rewriting it in a more conversational tone from Kevin Grittner's > efforts. Looks great to me. Thanks for all your efforts in this. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201601181316 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAladLAkACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjOZwCgqKxe5Uw9ujJIwCzWj4YHfVm9 etQAmwa1R5P8iPONXCgV9OMDiAaaTu/5 =awgH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 01/18/2016 10:15 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > >> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a >> pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be >> tolerated. > > Personally, I was comfortable with the rest of it, but this one > made me squirm a little. Could we spin that to say that those > behaviors will not be tolerated, versus not tolerating the people? > Maybe: > > * Disruption of the collaborative space or any pattern of > behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be > tolerated. No argument from me. I think they both service the same gist. Sincerely, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:02:33AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have received > no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we can > reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft. While the verbiage seems OK with me -- has there been consensus as to whether we actually want/need a CoC ? Thanks, Karsten Hilbert -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
On 01/18/2016 10:38 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:02:33AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have received >> no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we can >> reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft. > > While the verbiage seems OK with me -- has there been > consensus as to whether we actually want/need a CoC ? I believe this question is answered in the various threads. Sincerely, JD > > Thanks, > Karsten Hilbert > -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
On 18/01/2016 19:36, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/18/2016 10:15 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> >>> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a >>> pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be >>> tolerated. >> >> Personally, I was comfortable with the rest of it, but this one >> made me squirm a little. Could we spin that to say that those >> behaviors will not be tolerated, versus not tolerating the people? >> Maybe: >> >> * Disruption of the collaborative space or any pattern of >> behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be >> tolerated. > > No argument from me. I think they both service the same gist. > > Sincerely, > > JD > > > I would also vote in favour of not tolerating the behaviour. I guess it would be less open to critics than saying a participant is not tolerated... -- Stéphane Schildknecht Contact régional PostgreSQL pour l'Europe francophone Loxodata - Conseil, expertise et formations 06.17.11.37.42
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:02:33 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in > a pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not > be tolerated. This one might come back to bite you. I, along with probably twenty others, "disrupted the collaborative space" on the Debian-User mailing list during the Systemd Civil War, and I'd do it over again because of the technological and practical importance of preserving an alternative to systemd. I'd even like to believe that in a small way I helped recruit more people to the Devuan (Debian Fork) project. My posting rights were removed, basically, for "disrupting the collaborative space", and that's fine: Guilty as charged. But here's the thing: The list was moderated by a systemd advocate, who let the pro-systemd fanatics disrupt the collaborative space to their hearts' content with only the mildest wrist slaps, while removing posting rights of several anti-systemd people. "Disrupting the collaborative space" is very hard to define even when nobody has an agenda. When there are agendas, it almost certainly will lead to selective enforcement. Be careful what you wish for :-) SteveT Steve Litt January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting http://www.troubleshooters.com/28
> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in > a pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not > be tolerated. Perhaps changing the ", or participate" to " by engaging" would make that statement more focused. > "Disrupting the collaborative space" is very hard to define even when > nobody has an agenda. When there are agendas, it almost certainly will > lead to selective enforcement. PHP is currently going through a CoC discussion as well. Paul Jones has a good blog post on the dangers of CoC's and their abuse. http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/6214
On 20 January 2016 at 15:19, Brian Dunavant <brian@omniti.com> wrote: >> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in >> a pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not >> be tolerated. > > Perhaps changing the ", or participate" to " by engaging" would make > that statement more focused. Well yes, it makes it more focussed, but also completely changes the meaning. I could have got it wrong, but as I understood it the intention was that disrupting the collaborative space by other means (say, by posting multiple threads about something about which the majority have no interest to a mailing list where it might reasonably be considered offtopic, and telling anyone who complains that they can "just ignore them"?) would also not be tolerated. But maybe I'm just being facetious :) Geoff
On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have received no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we can reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft.
This final draft incorporates all reasonable feedback I have received as well as rewriting it in a more conversational tone from Kevin Grittner's efforts.
== 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.
I think this is well intentioned. All new laws should be subject to scrutiny as to how they will be applied and who will apply them.
There are difficulties here and I'm of the opinion it will have the opposite effect to its intention.
Person1: "I'd like you to stop doing that, it has bad effects"
(Lets assume that something bad has actually happened, enacted by Person 2)
Person2: "But everything I do is for the common good." - now anything that is said further violates point 3, straying near point 2.
Any attempt by Person1 to carry on the discussion until a reasonable outcome is achieved also violates point 4.
So even though Person2 has done something bad, Person1 is unable to discuss this without being sanctioned.
My observation is this isn't just a set of rules for behaviour, its a set of rules that controls people's ability to object, which is dangerous and would not be in the longer term interests of the community.
I suggest we remove point 3 entirely. Point 2 is sufficient to limit what is said.
Who will decide how this code is enacted? Rules imply rulers, so what is the constitution of the governing body?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> * 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. > I suggest we remove point 3 entirely. Point 2 is sufficient to limit what is > said. That came about because of the point made by someone for whom English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant). Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people don't give each other some benefit of the doubt. > Who will decide how this code is enacted? Rules imply rulers, so what is the > constitution of the governing body? It has been stated several times on this thread by multiple people that we should settle on the code to implement before talking about enforcement processes. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:05:15PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants >>> should always assume good intentions. ... > That came about because of the point made by someone for whom > English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone > by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that > was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant). > Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but > it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to > language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people > don't give each other some benefit of the doubt. * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should always consider the possibility of misunderstandings. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
On 20 January 2016 at 19:05, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote:
--
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> * 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.
> I suggest we remove point 3 entirely. Point 2 is sufficient to limit what is
> said.
That came about because of the point made by someone for whom
English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone
by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that
was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant).
Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but
it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to
language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people
don't give each other some benefit of the doubt.
Which means that anyone who violates point 2 cannot be held to account, because doing so would violate point 3.
I agree it is a great idea to assume the good intentions of others, but its a difficult principle to enforce.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 20 January 2016 at 19:14, Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net> wrote:
--
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:05:15PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
>>> should always assume good intentions.
...
> That came about because of the point made by someone for whom
> English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone
> by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that
> was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant).
> Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but
> it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to
> language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people
> don't give each other some benefit of the doubt.
* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always consider the possibility of misunderstandings.
+1
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > == 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.). I think the words "collaborative space, which is defined as" can be omitted completely without loss of meaning; and since it's already agreed that this CoC only applies to online media; I'd also add the word "online" there. So "It applies to all online communication channels (such as ...)". > * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views. Reading the fine print of this phrase, I think it doesn't really convey what we want it to convey. "We are tolerant of people that have opposing views", perhaps, or "We recognize people's right to have opposing views". My points is that we are not tolerant of _the right_ -- that seems nonsensical to me. (Merriam Webster defines "tolerant" as "inclined to tolerate", and "to tolerate" as "2a. to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction") However the "we" also seems a bit wrong to me. Who is "we"? In concordance with the other points, I think this should start "Participants must be" or something along those lines. If not, the perhaps this point should be in the preamble instead of being a bulleted point. > * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free > of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. There have been no comments to this point on this thread. Congratulations :-) > * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants > should always assume good intentions. Karsten Hilbert proposed a different wording for this, +1 for that one. > * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a > pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be > tolerated. "which could be considered" is too open-ended. Since this point is the one and only that can cause enforcement to occur, it should be more strict as to what it is that will not be tolerated. I'd propose something like "is widely regarded as harassment" or something like that, so that it needs to be clear that there is a large group of people that considers the behavior unwanted rather than some minority. I also agree that what we don't tolerate is the behavior, not the person engaging in the behavior. Regarding mailing list misbehavior, for instance, I would think that this means that that person's post would be moderated (and each post would only be approved if it has no personal attacks, etc) instead of the person being completely banned from a list. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 20 January 2016 at 20:04, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > "which could be considered" is too open-ended. Since this point is > the one and only that can cause enforcement to occur, it should be more > strict as to what it is that will not be tolerated. I'd propose > something like "is widely regarded as harassment" or something like > that, so that it needs to be clear that there is a large group of people > that considers the behavior unwanted rather than some minority. The problem with _that_ is that on the internet of 3 billion people "a large group of people" can be whipped up from a tiny minority. Geoff
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:
On 20 January 2016 at 20:04, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> "which could be considered" is too open-ended. Since this point is
> the one and only that can cause enforcement to occur, it should be more
> strict as to what it is that will not be tolerated. I'd propose
> something like "is widely regarded as harassment" or something like
> that, so that it needs to be clear that there is a large group of people
> that considers the behavior unwanted rather than some minority.
The problem with _that_ is that on the internet of 3 billion people "a
large group of people" can be whipped up from a tiny minority.
At the end of the day this will require human judgment rather than formulation.
Human judgment may be flawed but in a culturally diverse group it is far better than the alternative.
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
On 21 January 2016 at 10:37, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote: > At the end of the day this will require human judgment rather than > formulation. Then make it explicit. * Disruption of the collaborative space, or patterns of behaviour which the majority of the core team consider to be harassment, will not be tolerated. (I've depersonalised the sentence also, to make it clear that it's the action and not the actor that is not tolerated) > Human judgment may be flawed but in a culturally diverse group it is far > better than the alternative. It's better to let the baying crowd decide your fate rather than codifying acceptable behaviour? The Dark Ages called, they want their Justice model back :) Geoff
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:
Resisting the urge to talk about how justice was actually seen in the Dark Ages....
On 21 January 2016 at 10:37, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
> At the end of the day this will require human judgment rather than
> formulation.
Then make it explicit.
* Disruption of the collaborative space, or patterns of behaviour
which the majority of the core team consider to be harassment, will
not be tolerated.
(I've depersonalised the sentence also, to make it clear that it's the
action and not the actor that is not tolerated)
> Human judgment may be flawed but in a culturally diverse group it is far
> better than the alternative.
It's better to let the baying crowd decide your fate rather than
codifying acceptable behaviour?
The Dark Ages called, they want their Justice model back :)
But seriously, I think human judgment is better than a code which those who want to cause problems can and will use as a weapon against the rest.
Geoff
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
On 21 January 2016 at 11:28, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote: > Resisting the urge to talk about how justice was actually seen in the Dark > Ages.... Pitchforks. Baying crowds dragging those they consider to be wrongdoers from their beds and tying them to four horses and pulling them apart in the town square, without worrying about proof or reason. Trial by battle, where "the winner must have been in the right because God would make sure that the right man won". Women being drowned because it's better to kill an innocent girl (who will go straight to Heaven anyway) rather than let an evil witch live amongst us. Stuff like that. > But seriously, I think human judgment is better than a code which those who > want to cause problems can and will use as a weapon against the rest. Well, ish. The idea of having a strong published code which is tempered by human reasonableness is fairly well established in most legal systems. Geoff
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:
On 21 January 2016 at 11:28, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
> Resisting the urge to talk about how justice was actually seen in the Dark
> Ages....
Pitchforks. Baying crowds dragging those they consider to be
wrongdoers from their beds and tying them to four horses and pulling
them apart in the town square, without worrying about proof or reason.
Trial by battle, where "the winner must have been in the right because
God would make sure that the right man won". Women being drowned
because it's better to kill an innocent girl (who will go straight to
Heaven anyway) rather than let an evil witch live amongst us. Stuff
like that.
Decent description of early 18th century Europe. Not so great description of early 8th century Europe.
> But seriously, I think human judgment is better than a code which those who
> want to cause problems can and will use as a weapon against the rest.
Well, ish. The idea of having a strong published code which is
tempered by human reasonableness is fairly well established in most
legal systems.
I still side with the Scandinavian approach of passing general laws and trusting judges to apply them in line with moral rather than purely legal principles.
Geoff
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
On 21 January 2016 at 12:36, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote: > I still side with the Scandinavian approach of passing general laws and > trusting judges to apply them in line with moral rather than purely legal > principles. I believe that it's generally accepted that people will unconsciously apply their own prejudices in judging others unless there's a code that stops them from doing so. I _think_ that's where this whole CoC thing started, no? :) G
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:43:26 +0000 Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 10:37, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> > wrote: > > At the end of the day this will require human judgment rather than > > formulation. > > Then make it explicit. > > * Disruption of the collaborative space, or patterns of behaviour > which the majority of the core team consider to be harassment, will > not be tolerated. "Disruption of the collaborative space" is almost meaningless, and almost guarantees selective enforcement. On the other hand, "patterns of behaviour which the majority of the core team consider to be harassment" is crystal clear. What would happen if you just dropped "Disruption of the collaborative space"? If not, I'd suggest a much more definitive substitute for that phrase. SteveT Steve Litt January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting http://www.troubleshooters.com/28
On 01/21/2016 12:40 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > "Disruption of the collaborative space" is almost meaningless, and > almost guarantees selective enforcement. > > On the other hand, "patterns of behaviour which the majority of the > core team consider to be harassment" is crystal clear. What would > happen if you just dropped "Disruption of the collaborative space"? If > not, I'd suggest a much more definitive substitute for that phrase. * Participants who engage in behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment, will not be tolerated. As mentioned previously who is doing the enforcement is not yet determined. It should not be part of the CoC. Sincerely, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.