Обсуждение: Let's Do the CoC Right

Fellow PostgreSQLers,

I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this document, with very little feedback from the
peoplewho it’s likely to benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I missed you). I
suspectthat most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not
tothe level of many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this community and others, who
have.If those people are not speaking up here, I suspect it’s because they don’t expect to be heard. A bunch of white
guyswho run the project have decided what it’s gonna be, and mostly cut things out since these threads started. 

But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people who need them, and those who care about
them.They have considered what sorts of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to word
themso as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to appropriately address issues when they inevitably
arise,so that people continue to feel safe. 

So I’d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I propose that we take advantage of the ton of
thoughtothers have already put into this, and simply: 

* Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the
open-sourceContributor Covenant, unmodified. 

  http://contributor-covenant.org

* Put this document in the root directory of the project as CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to contribute
can.It should also be listed on the main web site and referenced from appropriate places (such as the mail lists
pages).

* Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a separate document, again in the Git rep and on
thesite. The reporting address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links to a number of
existingguides we ought to crib from. 

Best,

David

On Friday 22 January 2016 10:55 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Fellow PostgreSQLers,
>
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this document, with very little feedback from the
peoplewho it’s likely to benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I missed you). I
suspectthat most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not
tothe level of many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this community and others, who
have.If those people are not speaking up here, I suspect it’s because they don’t expect to be heard. A bunch of white
guyswho run the project have decided what it’s gonna be, and mostly cut things out since these threads started. 
>
> But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people who need them, and those who care about
them.They have considered what sorts of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to word
themso as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to appropriately address issues when they inevitably
arise,so that people continue to feel safe. 
>
> So I’d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I propose that we take advantage of the ton of
thoughtothers have already put into this, and simply: 
>
> * Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the
open-sourceContributor Covenant, unmodified. 
>
>    http://contributor-covenant.org
>
> * Put this document in the root directory of the project as CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to
contributecan. It should also be listed on the main web site and referenced from appropriate places (such as the mail
listspages). 
>
> * Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a separate document, again in the Git rep and on
thesite. The reporting address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links to a number of
existingguides we ought to crib from. 
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
Hi David, whatever be the race of the select few who built the CoC, the
categorization of them as white is inappropriate.. The CoC is meant to
be allowing free communication across all members of the community
irrespective of their color, race, sexuality, gender, nationality or for
that matter whatever their personal viewpoint is.

Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
someone by anything is inappropriate.

Thanks

Regards
Rajeev

Am 22.01.2016 um 08:00 schrieb Rajeev Bhatta:
>
> I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying someone by
> anything is inappropriate.
>
Wow!
#3 of current CoC
"When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should
always assume good intentions."

I can see those intentions and I read the whole text.

David et. Al,
Sorry for top-posting but it's late, and I'm using lame outlook.
I haven't said anything recently, because I decided to open a bag of popcorn and enjoy the Coc debate.

If you read my earlier posts, you should know that I am vehemently against anything that sounds like
http://contributor-covenant.org. True I don't speak for all mixed race women or women or minorities or left-handers or
windowsusers, or whatever special interest group you think I belong to.  I speak for myself. 

I am especially disgusted by the people behind http://contributor-covenant.org.  They have done nothing but to silence
thevoices of minorities. That's being kind to them. 

A Coc if we have one, which I personally don't think we should, should assume all people are here because they find
PostgreSQLuseful and want to encourage  its use and extend its functionality. 

So like I have said before as an example PostGIS doesn't have a Coc listed on our website, but we do have this:
http://postgis.net/development/  "Getting Involved" section, which Paul Ramsey put together a while back, and made me
feelpretty welcome. 

Which essentially says - "we are individuals with a common love for this thing, get to know who we are, jump in to help
usand your voice will be heard." 
That's pretty much all I care about when getting involved in any  community.

Thanks,
Regina

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajeev Bhatta [mailto:techie.rajeev@yahoo.in]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:00 AM
To: David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com>; pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Let's Do the CoC Right

On Friday 22 January 2016 10:55 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Fellow PostgreSQLers,
>
> I can t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this document, with very little feedback from the
peoplewho it s likely to benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I missed you). I
suspectthat most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not
tothe level of many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this community and others, who
have.If those people are not speaking up here, I suspect it s because they don t expect to be heard. A bunch of white
guyswho run the project have decided what it s gonna be, and mostly cut things out since these threads started. 
>
> But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people who need them, and those who care about
them.They have considered what sorts of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to word
themso as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to appropriately address issues when they inevitably
arise,so that people continue to feel safe. 
>
> So I d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I propose that we take advantage of the ton of
thoughtothers have already put into this, and simply: 
>
> * Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the
open-sourceContributor Covenant, unmodified. 
>
>    http://contributor-covenant.org
>
> * Put this document in the root directory of the project as CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to
contributecan. It should also be listed on the main web site and referenced from appropriate places (such as the mail
listspages). 
>
> * Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a separate document, again in the Git rep and on
thesite. The reporting address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links to a number of
existingguides we ought to crib from. 
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
Hi David, whatever be the race of the select few who built the CoC, the categorization of them as white is
inappropriate..The CoC is meant to be allowing free communication across all members of the community irrespective of
theircolor, race, sexuality, gender, nationality or for that matter whatever their personal viewpoint is. 

Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open for all. I did not read the remainder of the
emailas classifying someone by anything is inappropriate. 

Thanks

Regards
Rajeev

On 01/21/2016 11:00 PM, Rajeev Bhatta wrote:

> Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
> for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
> someone by anything is inappropriate.

+1



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

On 22 January 2016 at 05:25, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this document, with very little feedback from the
peoplewho it’s likely to benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I missed you). I
suspectthat most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. 

Others have addressed the reasons for not going with the Covenant;
however I would like to make the point that, just because I'm a white
straight male, it doesn't mean that there haven't been occasions when
I have suffered from prejudice: I didn't talk the right way, my
parents didn't have enough money, I'm too geeky, I wore the wrong
clothes, I have a name that was a double-gift for mean kids (UK
readers will remember Rainbow, I expect) etc etc etc.

Admittedly most of that has faded since childhood but there have been
aspects of it even in places I have worked as an adult (thankfully not
where I am now) and we don't even have recourse to the legal avenues
that have been created for racial and sexual discrimination; it's
probably one of the reasons that geeks find ourselves in these
tech-based online communities so often - there's so little chance of
being bullied by the cool kids.

I also have a feeling that that might have something to do with why
there's quite such a pushback against the type of person who shouts
loudly and motivates others to form a mob to get his or her own way
(and therefore why the covenant is unlikely to gain traction here).

Finally, to open a new thread and effectively say "you know the work
that you guys have put in over the last month, I'm sure it's fine, and
I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but why don't you do it
Right instead?" is pretty insulting, don't you think?

Geoff

A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.

Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently when writing emails. This is because over 50%
ofour interactions are through body language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know each
other'sbackground, experience and capacities.   

Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our freedom is automatically limited by other
people'sfreedom. That's life whatever species we care to look at.  

Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on this thread someone ,I have no doubt
unintentionallyand only because of current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. Even
thoughI am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i.  

As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need direction so we can keep the best of traditions
for 
whoever may come on board but at the same time have the flexibility to change with time.





-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 09:56
To: David E. Wheeler
Cc: pgsql-general
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 05:25, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this document, with very little feedback from the
peoplewho it’s likely to benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I missed you). I
suspectthat most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. 

Others have addressed the reasons for not going with the Covenant; however I would like to make the point that, just
becauseI'm a white straight male, it doesn't mean that there haven't been occasions when I have suffered from
prejudice:I didn't talk the right way, my parents didn't have enough money, I'm too geeky, I wore the wrong clothes, I
havea name that was a double-gift for mean kids (UK readers will remember Rainbow, I expect) etc etc etc. 

Admittedly most of that has faded since childhood but there have been aspects of it even in places I have worked as an
adult(thankfully not where I am now) and we don't even have recourse to the legal avenues that have been created for
racialand sexual discrimination; it's probably one of the reasons that geeks find ourselves in these tech-based online
communitiesso often - there's so little chance of being bullied by the cool kids. 

I also have a feeling that that might have something to do with why there's quite such a pushback against the type of
personwho shouts loudly and motivates others to form a mob to get his or her own way (and therefore why the covenant is
unlikelyto gain traction here). 

Finally, to open a new thread and effectively say "you know the work that you guys have put in over the last month, I'm
sureit's fine, and I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but why don't you do it Right instead?" is pretty
insulting,don't you think? 

Geoff


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

On 22 January 2016 at 10:47, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
<farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:
> A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.

I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't
believe that we should, but that's not the same thing. Everyone is
entitled to their opinion. I don't think we should have one. I'm aware
of the reasons why other people think we should, I don't need
educating, I just believe that its overall impact will be negative or
(at best) neutral.

> Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently when writing emails. This is because over
50%of our interactions are through body language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know each
other'sbackground, experience and capacities. 

So what you're saying is, email is a bad thing because we can't use
our normal prejudices in advance?

> Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our freedom is automatically limited by other
people'sfreedom. That's life whatever species we care to look at. 

I haven't seen anyone making the argument that they should be allowed
to say whatever they want with no regard for others.

> Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on this thread someone ,I have no doubt
unintentionallyand only because of current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. Even
thoughI am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i. 

They did? Apologies if I missed it but the only reference I can find
is that Jim said that he is religious about postgres, which has
nothing at all to do with your (or indeed his) religion. Indeed the
only person who seems to be bringing up religion (rather repeatedly)
is yourself.

> As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need direction so we can keep the best of traditions
for
> whoever may come on board but at the same time have the flexibility to change with time.

You've given no clear evidence as to a) whether that's true or b) how
a CoC will actually help to achieve that.

I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is
defined by the people who spend their time writing it. If,  in ten
years' time, some different people come along with a different vision
and set of traditions, then that's up to them, surely?

Geoff

>Farjad wrote
>A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.

>>Geoff wrote
>>I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't believe that we should, but that's not the same
thing.Everyone is entitled 
>>to their opinion. I don't think we should have one. I'm aware of the reasons why other people think we should,
>>I don't need educating,

Perhaps you haven't read all the threads. You are not the only person who has question the need for Coc.

Everyone knows people react differently when they are consulting face to face than on email. There is a need for
etiquettebut not necessarily a restrictive one.  

>>Geoff wrote
>> I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is defined by the people who spend their time
writingit.  

But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their businesses no product will ever stay relevant to
endusers for long.  
So everyone's problem and comment is relevant and valuable. Even though the postgresql developers obviously see a
broaderpicture and naturally have a greater say.   

Personally speaking i like to learn all the time. If it is constructive and useful I don't mind where it comes from.

We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is trying to educate you. The fact you are taking
itthat way is only your perspective and what is wrong with learning something new?  



-----Original Message-----
From: gwinkless@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkless@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 11:21
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet); Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 10:47, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:
> A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.

I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't believe that we should, but that's not the same thing.
Everyoneis entitled to their opinion. I don't think we should have one. I'm aware of the reasons why other people think
weshould, I don't need educating, I just believe that its overall impact will be negative or (at best) neutral. 

> Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently when writing emails. This is because over
50%of our interactions are through body language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know each
other'sbackground, experience and capacities. 

So what you're saying is, email is a bad thing because we can't use our normal prejudices in advance?

> Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our freedom is automatically limited by other
people'sfreedom. That's life whatever species we care to look at. 

I haven't seen anyone making the argument that they should be allowed to say whatever they want with no regard for
others.

> Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on this thread someone ,I have no doubt
unintentionallyand only because of current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. Even
thoughI am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i. 

They did? Apologies if I missed it but the only reference I can find is that Jim said that he is religious about
postgres,which has nothing at all to do with your (or indeed his) religion. Indeed the only person who seems to be
bringingup religion (rather repeatedly) is yourself. 

> As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need
> direction so we can keep the best of traditions for whoever may come on board but at the same time have the
flexibilityto change with time. 

You've given no clear evidence as to a) whether that's true or b) how a CoC will actually help to achieve that.

I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is defined by the people who spend their time
writingit. If,  in ten years' time, some different people come along with a different vision and set of traditions,
thenthat's up to them, surely? 

Geoff

On 22 January 2016 at 12:08, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
<farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:
>
> But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their businesses no product will ever stay relevant to
endusers for long. 

Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.

> So everyone's problem and comment is relevant and valuable.
> Even though the postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and naturally have a greater say.

Well no. The Postgresql developers can decide whether everyone else's
comments are relevant to them and, if they decide otherwise, they can
say "no, thanks, we don't want to do that. There are several other
products that might help you, feel free to use those."

Eventually, the people who are asking for those things will either
move to a different database, or become developers either within
postgres or in a fork. That is how Open Source works.

> We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is trying to educate you.

I'm not objecting to people trying to educate me, I'm objecting to
your implication that those people who do not want a CoC are simply
uneducated. I think it's fairly clear, given the amount of discussion
that has gone on, that the people who still don't think it's necessary
are likely to have reached an educated conclusion to that effect.

> The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective and what is wrong with learning something new?

Oh, I see! It's not you who is causing me upset, but rather my fault
for taking it that way?

You really don't see the irony in that, given the context of the discussion?

Geoff

>Geoff wrote
>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.

You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an input.  Just yours.

WOW! Then I suggest put it in Coc.



-----Original Message-----
From: gwinkless@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkless@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 12:48
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 12:08, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:
>
> But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their businesses no product will ever stay relevant to
endusers for long. 

Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.

> So everyone's problem and comment is relevant and valuable.
> Even though the postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and naturally have a greater say.

Well no. The Postgresql developers can decide whether everyone else's comments are relevant to them and, if they decide
otherwise,they can say "no, thanks, we don't want to do that. There are several other products that might help you,
feelfree to use those." 

Eventually, the people who are asking for those things will either move to a different database, or become developers
eitherwithin postgres or in a fork. That is how Open Source works. 

> We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is trying to educate you.

I'm not objecting to people trying to educate me, I'm objecting to your implication that those people who do not want a
CoCare simply uneducated. I think it's fairly clear, given the amount of discussion that has gone on, that the people
whostill don't think it's necessary are likely to have reached an educated conclusion to that effect. 

> The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective and what is wrong with learning something new?

Oh, I see! It's not you who is causing me upset, but rather my fault for taking it that way?

You really don't see the irony in that, given the context of the discussion?

Geoff

On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
<farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:
>>Geoff wrote
>>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an input.  Just yours.

Now I'm being reasonable and explaining my point, whereas you've
descended to "YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD PERSON!!!!".

My work here is done.

Geoff

No one has suggested you are a bad person.

The world is changing towards smaller more agile companies. For postgresql to survive it needs to be at the forefront
ofthe wave.  

It is difficult for everyone to cope with so many changes. You are part of the team and a good contributor.

So let's keep it that way.


-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 13:22
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:
>>Geoff wrote
>>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an input.  Just yours.

Now I'm being reasonable and explaining my point, whereas you've descended to "YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD
PERSON!!!!".

My work here is done.

Geoff


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

Geoff,

The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail or software industry.
The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where software is concerned.

All the predictions are pointing to greater success for smaller more nibble companies.

I believe we need to say things honestly, equally frankly and as politely as possibly. Without frank consultation we
won'tget anywhere.  

I don't think you are bad person. Just that you are resisting change.

Personally I rather see more contributions as it adds to the momentum of the community as a whole.

Hope this clarifies my position.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 13:22
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:
>>Geoff wrote
>>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an input.  Just yours.

Now I'm being reasonable and explaining my point, whereas you've descended to "YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD
PERSON!!!!".

My work here is done.

Geoff


--
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 22, 2016 at 02:51:24PM -0000, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:

> The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail or software industry.
> The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where software is concerned.
>
> All the predictions are pointing to greater success for smaller more nibble companies.

While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing
directly to do with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.

Regards,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

> While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do
with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.

All you have to do is to check it out.

As to its relevance. It comes down to listening to everyone's needs.
Identifying next major requirements and implementing it before the
competition.


-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Karsten Hilbert
Sent: 22 January 2016 15:05
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:51:24PM -0000, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:

> The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail
or software industry.
> The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where
software is concerned.
>
> All the predictions are pointing to greater success for smaller more
nibble companies.

While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do
with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.

Regards,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


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

On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

>> Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
>> for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
>> someone by anything is inappropriate.
>
> +1

The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive discussion.

Best,

David

On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:39 AM, Regina Obe <lr@pcorp.us> wrote:

> I am especially disgusted by the people behind http://contributor-covenant.org.  They have done nothing but to
silencethe voices of minorities. That's being kind to them. 

Interesting. Got a link for context? I Googled, but saw nothing about controversy or other issues in the first few
pages.Maybe I need to dig a little deeper? 

Honestly, I like that other folks have really thought this stuff through, and it’s so widely adopted as to be
approachinga standard for OSS. 

> Which essentially says - "we are individuals with a common love for this thing, get to know who we are, jump in to
helpus and your voice will be heard." 
> That's pretty much all I care about when getting involved in any  community.

Right, but it’s not enough for other people, so insufficiently inclusive.

Best,

David

On 01/22/2016 09:08 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>>> Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
>>> for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
>>> someone by anything is inappropriate.
>>
>> +1
>
> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive discussion.

To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be
subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive. To
the extent that the whole world was not included, then no. I for one
think the whole idea is useless because of the above, deciding what
value between 0 and 7.4 billion should be notified and who in whatever
value is chosen is more right.

>
> Best,
>
> David
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:

>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive discussion.
>
> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject to it had an opportunity to comment,
yesit was inclusive. 

It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past. Best way for it
tobe inclusive is to either bring those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar
positionshave developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time. 

Best,

David

On 01/22/2016 09:21 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
>
>>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive discussion.
>>
>> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject to it had an opportunity to comment,
yesit was inclusive. 
>
> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past.

When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up
either directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would
expect verifiable information.


>Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that
peoplein similar positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time. 
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:

>> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past.
>
> When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up either directly or through someone else. In
doingso though I would expect verifiable information. 

So here we have a chicken-and-egg issue. If there is no CoC (or an insufficient one), then people who have been hurt in
thepast don’t want to participate. You need the security of a CoC before it’s safe to come back. It is not up to them
toprove themselves to you, to verify that they have suffered just for some sort of confirmation for you. 

The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the immediate confines of a single mail list.
Oreven the community itself. People have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help fixing the
thingsover which they left? 

BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.

Best,

David

On 01/22/2016 09:30 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
>
>>> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past.
>>
>> When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up either directly or through someone else. In
doingso though I would expect verifiable information. 
>
> So here we have a chicken-and-egg issue. If there is no CoC (or an insufficient one), then people who have been hurt
inthe past don’t want to participate. You need the security of a CoC before it’s safe to come back. It is not up to
themto prove themselves to you, to verify that they have suffered just for some sort of confirmation for you. 

Actually they or someone does, if for no other reason then to define
what hurt is? A good part of the endless discussion has revolved around
at what point people take offense. Without some actual input from those
who have felt offended, then the discussion is pretty much useless.

>
> The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the immediate confines of a single mail
list.Or even the community itself. People have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help fixing
thethings over which they left? 
>
> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.

Then speak to details.

>
> Best,
>
> David
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

David,

Again sorry for cutting thread.  I just get the digest.

>> I am especially disgusted by the people behind http://contributor-covenant.org.  They have done nothing but to
silencethe voices of minorities. That's being kind to them. 

> Interesting. Got a link for context? I Googled, but saw nothing about controversy or other issues in the first few
pages.Maybe I need to dig a little deeper? 

Ruby is under heavy threat to adopt this, but they have not yet to my knowledge.  Here is the thread:

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004

Reading the thread requires a lot of attention and also face recognition.  So I shall point out the actors and
actressesin this conversation you should pay close attention to: 

Coraline Ada -  https://www.patreon.com/coraline?ty=h - Please give money to her cause, as it's way more important than
thepoor folk who work to make PostgreSQL better for free and never ask you for a dime 

Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene -  https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200
https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 
Yes indeed he was very angered at Elia's (key Opal developer) saying gender reassignment is wrong for young children,
andspending like $50,000 on gender reassignment is being out of touch with reality.  Like me saying smokers are killing
themselvesand spending money on 3 packs of cigrarettes a day could be better used. 

Strand McCutchen - https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/942  (wow what a trooper, he's going to help Opal polish off the
ContributorConvenant so it's in a shape they can accept) 


Ruby Creator - Yukihiro Matsumoto
And you must agree after seeing all the evidence that Yukihiro Matsumoto (who is not even a white guy) inventor of ruby
mustbe a jerk for not adopting this wonderful thing to make people feel welcome and respected.  What awful person would
not. How about me? 


Let's not forget about Meredith Patterson -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI53yys3dbA&feature=youtu.be&t=538  What
hasshe done for open source? 
Please ignore the two white guys in the talk, they are just white guys with white guy opinions.


Thanks,
Regina

On 22 January 2016 at 17:30, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the immediate confines of a single mail
list.Or even the community itself. People have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help fixing
thethings over which they left? 
>
> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.

Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else"
to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable?
Because the only way in which I can see it doesn't align with the
Contributor Covenant is that the CoC doesn't consider someone's
personal opinions, either private or expressed outside the Postgresql
arena, to be the responsibility of the Postgres team.

Geoff

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:

>> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.
>
> Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else"
> to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable?
> Because the only way in which I can see it doesn't align with the
> Contributor Covenant is that the CoC doesn't consider someone's
> personal opinions, either private or expressed outside the Postgresql
> arena, to be the responsibility of the Postgres team.

If this is the latest:

  http://postgresql.nabble.com/CoC-Final-td5882762.html

Then:

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

This point allows anyone who has been reported for a violation to say that they simply have an opposing point of view,
andwhy can’t you respect that? It’s an out for anyone in violation. 

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

This allows a violator to claim ignorance. The “I didn’t know I was being harassing!” ‘defense’ works.  It plays into
the“geeks are  bad at social” fallacy, and completely ignores that a lot of abusers intentionally craft “oh I didn’t
know”stories/personas to get away with their abuse. 

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

This allows the “I didn’t realize my tone was off, can’t you assume I have good intentions?” defense.

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

This should point to a policy for handling violations. What does “will not be tolerated” mean? It needn’t be spelled
outin the CoC, but it must be spelled out and pointed at from the CoC. 

This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don’t want to be misunderstood. There is a lot
hereto let violators protect themselves in the event of a reported violation, but little to make vulnerable people feel
safe.It is the latter that needs to be the message of the CoC, not the former. 

Those of us who fear offending without meaning to, or being misunderstood, can best serve the aims of a CoC -- openness
andsafety -- by being open to learning from our mistakes rather than trying to defend them on the basis of intent. 

Best,

David

On Jan 22, 2016 23:00, "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
>
> >> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past.
> >
> > When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up either directly or through someone else. In
doingso though I would expect verifiable information.  
>
> So here we have a chicken-and-egg issue. If there is no CoC (or an insufficient one), then people who have been hurt
inthe past don’t want to participate. You need the security of a CoC before it’s safe to come back. It is not up to
themto prove themselves to you, to verify that they have suffered just for some sort of confirmation for you.  

It is unfortunate that someone was hurt and had to stop participating.. However the purpose of the CoC is to ensure the
samesituation does not repeat itself. For this I do not think anyone should convince anyone who has left rather build
anenvironment so that current and new contributors are comfortable and do not find a hostile community .. If the people
wholeft were passionate enough to the success of the project then the information on an inclusion of an CoC would reach
themand they can join back...  

Any process or change is perfected over course of time.. The current CoC may not be perfect but time will make it.

>
> The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the immediate confines of a single mail
list.Or even the community itself. People have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help fixing
thethings over which they left?  

Ideas can be solicited from other groups but CoC should be created and enforced by our community alone...
>
> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.

I am sorry to hear that... The fact that you are raising your opinion shows your passion for postgres project which is
veryappreciated and I hope if there are others they should be back and see that there is an effort to minimize the ill
treatmentthey had to suffer.  
>
> Best,
>
> David
>

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Regina Obe <lr@pcorp.us> wrote:

> Again sorry for cutting thread.  I just get the digest.

No worries. :-)

> Ruby is under heavy threat to adopt this, but they have not yet to my knowledge.  Here is the thread:

Threat?

> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004
>
> Reading the thread requires a lot of attention and also face recognition.  So I shall point out the actors and
actressesin this conversation you should pay close attention to: 
>
> Coraline Ada -  https://www.patreon.com/coraline?ty=h - Please give money to her cause, as it's way more important
thanthe poor folk who work to make PostgreSQL better for free and never ask you for a dime 

$300 a month to work on promoting diversity in open-source projects? It’s worth *so* much more than that.

> Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene -  https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200
https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 
> Yes indeed he was very angered at Elia's (key Opal developer) saying gender reassignment is wrong for young children,
andspending like $50,000 on gender reassignment is being out of touch with reality.  Like me saying smokers are killing
themselvesand spending money on 3 packs of cigrarettes a day could be better used. 

I don’t follow.

> Strand McCutchen - https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/942  (wow what a trooper, he's going to help Opal polish off
theContributor Convenant so it's in a shape they can accept) 

Looks like it went in.

  https://github.com/opal/opal/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

> Ruby Creator - Yukihiro Matsumoto
> And you must agree after seeing all the evidence that Yukihiro Matsumoto (who is not even a white guy) inventor of
rubymust be a jerk for not adopting this wonderful thing to make people feel welcome and respected.  What awful person
wouldnot.  How about me? 

It depends on his reasons, I suppose.

> Let's not forget about Meredith Patterson -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI53yys3dbA&feature=youtu.be&t=538  What
hasshe done for open source? 
> Please ignore the two white guys in the talk, they are just white guys with white guy opinions.

They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots.

Best,

David

On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Rajeev Bhatta <techie.rajeev@yahoo.in> wrote:

> Any process or change is perfected over course of time.. The current CoC may not be perfect but time will make it.

It is better than none, I’ll grant you, but it could be SOOO much better right now.

> Ideas can be solicited from other groups but CoC should be created and enforced by our community alone…

It’s fair to draw on the experience and expertise of others who have gone before us, yes.

>> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.
>
> I am sorry to hear that... The fact that you are raising your opinion shows your passion for postgres project which
isvery appreciated and I hope if there are others they should be back and see that there is an effort to minimize the
illtreatment they had to suffer.  

Oh, no doubt, but the fact that they’re not participating (or barely) shows that the current proposal is insufficient.

Best,

David

On 1/22/2016 9:43 AM, Regina Obe wrote:
> Reading the thread requires a lot of attention and also face recognition.  So I shall point out the actors and
actressesin this conversation you should pay close attention to: 

ohgood(diety-of-choice).     This could be made into a soap opera and
run on prime time television.



--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the
group because you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it
worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you
off-list.

On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
>
>>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive discussion.
>>
>> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject to it had an opportunity to comment,
yesit was inclusive. 
>
> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past. Best way for it
tobe inclusive is to either bring those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar
positionshave developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time. 

As a group the postgres team have decided the level to which they wish
to make it clear that they welcome everyone.

What they will not agree to do is leave members open to the SJWs that
have abused the existing Covenant. If you were to bother to read the
discussions you would know this, and to deny that you could find
anything about it on the internet is frankly disingenuous, because
typing "contributor covenant issues" brings up references to Opalgate
on the second page.

The Covenant deliberately and explicitly bars a significant proportion
of the world's population who disagree with its principles. The
Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement
social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to
be an acceptable compromise.

Anyone who considers that they are entitled to require the postgres
team to commit to behave in a way with which they are uncomfortable is
actively unwelcome. Why is that unreasonable?

Geoff

On 01/22/2016 11:05 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the
> group because you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it
> worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you
> off-list.
>
> On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive discussion.
>>>
>>> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject to it had an opportunity to
comment,yes it was inclusive. 
>>
>> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past. Best way for
itto be inclusive is to either bring those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar
positionshave developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time. 
>
> As a group the postgres team have decided the level to which they wish
> to make it clear that they welcome everyone.
>
> What they will not agree to do is leave members open to the SJWs that
> have abused the existing Covenant. If you were to bother to read the
> discussions you would know this, and to deny that you could find
> anything about it on the internet is frankly disingenuous, because
> typing "contributor covenant issues" brings up references to Opalgate
> on the second page.
>
> The Covenant deliberately and explicitly bars a significant proportion
> of the world's population who disagree with its principles. The
> Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement
> social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to
> be an acceptable compromise.

+1. I am personally offended by the Covenant as it assumes projects are
guilty and need to prove innocence which goes against the principles I
was raised on. Of course the previous sentence could be construed as
offensive as it reflects a Anglo-American view.

>
> Anyone who considers that they are entitled to require the postgres
> team to commit to behave in a way with which they are uncomfortable is
> actively unwelcome. Why is that unreasonable?
>
> Geoff
>
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:

> Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely statements like that would violate *both* the
contributorcovenant *and* the CoC suggested by others. 

It may well violate the Contributor Covenant (my apologies, I was out of line), but not the current draft of the CoC,
IME.Why? Because that’s just my opinion, and the CoC draft formally recognizes my right to have an “opposing view”. 

Best,

David

On 22 January 2016 at 19:37, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
>> Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely statements like that would violate *both* the
contributorcovenant *and* the CoC suggested by others. 
>
> It may well violate the Contributor Covenant (my apologies, I was out of line), but not the current draft of the CoC,
IME.Why? Because that’s just my opinion, and the CoC draft formally recognizes my right to have an “opposing view”. 

You are welcome to hold that view, but you are not welcome to express
it in a personal derogatory way. At no point does the CoC say "you can
come here and _express_ your opinions in an unfettered manner".

Geoff

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:

They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots.

Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and* the CoC suggested by others.

-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:25:58 -0800
Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:


> When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up
> either directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would
> expect verifiable information.

Maybe they can't.

Imagine for a second that I'm a homosexual, and that a guy cracked a
crude joke about homosexuals, and three or four people post that it was
a funny joke. Imagine further that I work for one of those troglodyte
employers who would fire me the instant they found out I was a
homosexual, and I come from a family that would disown me if they found
out. I wouldn't speak up. I wouldn't even say "I'm not a homosexual,
but I think your words are hurtful!" Because I would be so afraid of
being found out that I would not give one hint. I'd just leave.

Now imagine I was from one of those countries where homosexuality is
punishable by death.

Speaking up is a privilege often reserved for the in crowd and the
revolutionary.

SteveT

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

Hi David !
I totally share your toughts. I was following the whole CoC discussion,
and as a transgender woman found myself with a lot of sadness. Because
what happened in that discussion, happens in some other projects that I
liked technically and used for a long time.

It's sad, because all those who participated in the discussion were
people that are not exposed to the experiences we live (and by that, I
mean everyone not fitting in the hegemony of that white guy in the IT
industry), and by consequence they don't have sensibility/empathy to
notice or understand what's out of place ... or these people are totally
limited in how much of that sensibility/empathy can get. And that's the
foundation on which the CoC is being written. I saw the CoC go down,
down, and down in content and quality, not taking stances for nothing
and falling into generalizations.

I truly hope that open source communities can move forward on the social
aspect (the community), so more people can feel ok/safe to come by and
put hands to the work without feeling exposed to violent situations.
And, about some comments/signatures I saw floating around the CoC
discussion, I will just say that this is not being about weak, pitiful,
etc ... sometimes, you just get tired or you just cant have your armor
all day on, all week on, all month on, all year on ... all life on, and
sometimes you prefer to avoid these situations, and do something else in
a safer enviroment, so you have a moment when you can take the damn
armor off and simply worrying about having fun.

This is pretty much my personal opinion.

Hugs ~

P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to
the mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come
forward and say something, dunno.

On 01/22/2016 04:00 AM, Rajeev Bhatta wrote:
> On Friday 22 January 2016 10:55 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> Fellow PostgreSQLers,
>>
>> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this
>> document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely
>> to benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina;
>> sorry if I missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have
>> never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid.
>> Certainly not to the level of many women, transgendered, and people
>> of color I know of personally, in this community and others, who
>> have. If those people are not speaking up here, I suspect it’s
>> because they don’t expect to be heard. A bunch of white guys who run
>> the project have decided what it’s gonna be, and mostly cut things
>> out since these threads started.
>>
>> But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by
>> the people who need them, and those who care about them. They have
>> considered what sorts of things should be covered, what topics
>> specifically addressed, and how to word them so as to enable the most
>> people possible to feel safe, and to appropriately address issues
>> when they inevitably arise, so that people continue to feel safe.
>>
>> So I’d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead,
>> I propose that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have
>> already put into this, and simply:
>>
>> * Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift,
>> Mono, Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor
>> Covenant, unmodified.
>>
>>    http://contributor-covenant.org
>>
>> * Put this document in the root directory of the project as
>> CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It
>> should also be listed on the main web site and referenced from
>> appropriate places (such as the mail lists pages).
>>
>> * Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as
>> a separate document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The
>> reporting address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant
>> web site has links to a number of existing guides we ought to crib from.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> David
>>
> Hi David, whatever be the race of the select few who built the CoC,
> the categorization of them as white is inappropriate.. The CoC is
> meant to be allowing free communication across all members of the
> community irrespective of their color, race, sexuality, gender,
> nationality or for that matter whatever their personal viewpoint is.
>
> Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was
> open for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
> someone by anything is inappropriate.
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards
> Rajeev
>
>

On Jan 22, 2016 23:59, "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:
>
> >> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.
> >
> > Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else"
> > to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable?
> > Because the only way in which I can see it doesn't align with the
> > Contributor Covenant is that the CoC doesn't consider someone's
> > personal opinions, either private or expressed outside the Postgresql
> > arena, to be the responsibility of the Postgres team.
>
> If this is the latest:
>
>   http://postgresql.nabble.com/CoC-Final-td5882762.html
>
> Then:
>
> > * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
>
> This point allows anyone who has been reported for a violation to say that they simply have an opposing point of
view,and why can’t you respect that? It’s an out for anyone in violation.  
>
> > * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
> > of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
>
> This allows a violator to claim ignorance. The “I didn’t know I was being harassing!” ‘defense’ works.  It plays into
the“geeks are  bad at social” fallacy, and completely ignores that a lot of abusers intentionally craft “oh I didn’t
know”stories/personas to get away with their abuse.  
>
> > * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> > should always assume good intentions.
>
> This allows the “I didn’t realize my tone was off, can’t you assume I have good intentions?” defense.
>
> > * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
> > pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
> > tolerated.
>
> This should point to a policy for handling violations. What does “will not be tolerated” mean? It needn’t be spelled
outin the CoC, but it must be spelled out and pointed at from the CoC.  
>
> This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don’t want to be misunderstood. There is a lot
hereto let violators protect themselves in the event of a reported violation, but little to make vulnerable people feel
safe.It is the latter that needs to be the message of the CoC, not the former.  

I agree. However the CoC needs to protect all, while there are some clear lines of conduct that everyone should adhere
tofor eg. Your calling of the group, a group of white people would clearly be IMO out of line, while there are some
shadysituations where the meaning from one end could be misunderstood by other and it may not fall under the realms of
aviolation. We need a CoC to protect both situations. If you have ideas or suggestions that can make the CoC better, I
thinkit would be good to share that in the other CoC thread. 

>
> Those of us who fear offending without meaning to, or being misunderstood, can best serve the aims of a CoC --
opennessand safety -- by being open to learning from our mistakes rather than trying to defend them on the basis of
intent. 
>
> Best,
>
> David
>

On 22 January 2016 at 19:47, Luz Violeta <luz.stancati@www.com.ar> wrote:
> And that's the foundation on
> which the CoC is being written. I saw the CoC go down, down, and down in
> content and quality, not taking stances for nothing and falling into
> generalizations.

As I understand it the main motivation for not wanting to accept the
Contributor Covenant is that experience has shown that it forces the
project team to behave as judge and jury on a contributor's personal
life. If you cannot accept that that is a reasonable standpoint, then
I guess we have nowhere to go. If you can, then please make your
suggestions as to how it can be improved within that limit; however
saying "why don't you just accept the CC" will not get anywhere.

> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the
> mailing list ...

Welcome to the list, I can't speak for anyone else but personally I
hope it brings you the joy you seek.

Geoff

Geoff,

Are you a woman of color of Black descent?  You seem to have the same exact opinions that I do.  How can that be?

Thanks,
Regina

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Winkless [mailto:pgsqladmin@geoff.dj]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:06 PM
To: Postgres General <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Cc: David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com>
Subject: Re: Let's Do the CoC Right

I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the group because you clearly don't score enough troll
pointsto make it worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you off-list. 

On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
>
>>> The fact that it was  open for all  does not mean that it was an inclusive discussion.
>>
>> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject to it had an opportunity to comment,
yesit was inclusive. 
>
> It excludes people who don t participate in the list because of issues they ve had there in the past. Best way for it
tobe inclusive is to either bring those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar
positionshave developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time. 

As a group the postgres team have decided the level to which they wish to make it clear that they welcome everyone.

What they will not agree to do is leave members open to the SJWs that have abused the existing Covenant. If you were to
botherto read the discussions you would know this, and to deny that you could find anything about it on the internet is
franklydisingenuous, because typing "contributor covenant issues" brings up references to Opalgate on the second page. 

The Covenant deliberately and explicitly bars a significant proportion of the world's population who disagree with its
principles.The Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement social justice, and instead decided to
implementwhat they believe to be an acceptable compromise. 

Anyone who considers that they are entitled to require the postgres team to commit to behave in a way with which they
areuncomfortable is actively unwelcome. Why is that unreasonable? 

Geoff

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:53:28PM -0000, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:

> > While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do
> with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.
>
> All you have to do is to check it out.
>
> As to its relevance. It comes down to listening to everyone's needs.
> Identifying next major requirements and implementing it before the
> competition.

Indeed. And PostgreSQL's been brilliant with that so
far even without a CoC.

A wholehearted Thank You! to all having worked/working on PostgreSQL !

Karsten Hilbert
on behalf of the GNUmed EMR project
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

On 01/22/2016 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta wrote:
> Hi David !
> I totally share your toughts. I was following the whole CoC discussion,
> and as a transgender woman found myself with a lot of sadness. Because
> what happened in that discussion, happens in some other projects that I
> liked technically and used for a long time.
>
> It's sad, because all those who participated in the discussion were
> people that are not exposed to the experiences we live (and by that, I
> mean everyone not fitting in the hegemony of that white guy in the IT
> industry), and by consequence they don't have sensibility/empathy to
> notice or understand what's out of place ... or these people are totally
> limited in how much of that sensibility/empathy can get. And that's the
> foundation on which the CoC is being written. I saw the CoC go down,
> down, and down in content and quality, not taking stances for nothing
> and falling into generalizations.
>
> I truly hope that open source communities can move forward on the social
> aspect (the community), so more people can feel ok/safe to come by and
> put hands to the work without feeling exposed to violent situations.
> And, about some comments/signatures I saw floating around the CoC
> discussion, I will just say that this is not being about weak, pitiful,
> etc ... sometimes, you just get tired or you just cant have your armor
> all day on, all week on, all month on, all year on ... all life on, and
> sometimes you prefer to avoid these situations, and do something else in
> a safer enviroment, so you have a moment when you can take the damn
> armor off and simply worrying about having fun.
>
> This is pretty much my personal opinion.
>
> Hugs ~
>
> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to
> the mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come
> forward and say something, dunno.
>

I do not see a shitstorm in the making and welcome to the list.


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0300, Luz Violeta wrote:

> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the
> mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come forward and
> say something, dunno.

Not that I've got much to say around here ;-)  but, welcome
to the list ! :-D

Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 07:05:49PM +0000, Geoff Winkless wrote:

> Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement
> social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to
> be an acceptable compromise.

In fact, they decided to implement PostgreSQL - and I cannot
thank them enough for that :-)

Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0300, Luz Violeta wrote:

> It's sad, because all those who participated in the discussion were people
> that are not exposed to the experiences we live (and by that, I mean
> everyone not fitting in the hegemony of that white guy in the IT industry),
> and by consequence they don't have sensibility/empathy to notice or
> understand what's out of place

I am fairly sure we can _not_ safely assert these two things:

    participants being "white guy in the IT industry"

and

    participants "don't have sensibility/empathy to notice or
    understand what's out of place"

Best regards,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:

> Speaking up is a privilege often reserved for the in crowd and the
> revolutionary.

+1000

David

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta <luz.stancati@www.com.ar> wrote:

> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the mailing list ... but definitely this spark
ofhope made me come forward and say something, dunno. 

Thank you so much for doing so. Up to now it’s just been one more white guy (me) saying something. The more folks who
canconstructively contribute -- and especially to shine a light on the contexts of which many of us are unaware -- the
betterthe likelihood of getting something that creates the safe environment I firmly believe we all want. 

Best,

David

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


David E. Wheeler wrote:

(...good rebuttals to specific points of the proposed Code of Conduct..

> This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don�t
> want to be misunderstood. There is a lot here to let violators protect
> themselves in the event of a reported violation, but little to make
> vulnerable people feel safe. It is the latter that needs to be the message
> of the CoC, not the former.

Thanks, David, I confess I hadn't seen it in that light before, but you
make some good points. I think this may indeed be one of those times
that we do not attempt to "roll our own". Or at the very least, we should
strive to understand how other communities arrived at their Codes and
why it is working for them.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201601221729
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAlaircQACgkQvJuQZxSWSshcsgCeMsyRvP24YbFD/OTuvQ20/PEf
PHIAn2Gu3ectm6o/L2npNMy+cFBhvD2b
=p/1f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:32:10PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> that we do not attempt to "roll our own". Or at the very least, we should
> strive to understand how other communities arrived at their Codes and
> why it is working for them.

This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some
while ago.  There is definitely more than one way to do this.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca

On 01/22/2016 03:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some
> while ago. There is definitely more than one way to do this. Best
> regards, A
Just a gut feeling, but I think this thread had driven the rest of the
regulars to drink at a bar without wifi

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta <luz.stancati@www.com.ar> wrote:
>
>> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first
>> mail to the mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope
>> made me come forward and say something, dunno.

Welcome!

I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
present.

> the better the likelihood of getting something that creates the
> safe environment I firmly believe we all want.

Not only do I want that, but I thought we had it.  I have still not
seen anything to show me otherwise; the hypothetical examples I can
remember seeing on these recent threads bear no resemblance to
anything I can remember ever seeing on the PostgreSQL lists.  Can
you point to something as an example of the kind of behavior that
you think a Code of Conduct would have prevented?

Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.

In particular, I think that if (hypothetically) someone who is part
of the community makes some idiotic, offensive, insensitive
statement of blathering idiocy *outside PostgreSQL forums*, they
should enjoy the same right to respect and prevention of attack *on
the PostgreSQL forums* as everyone else.  They just better not
repeat the idiocy here.  I would hope that major contributors would
keep in mind the impact that such statements in other venues might
have on the public perception of the community.  I've come around
to the point of view that encouraging such consideration is outside
the scope of what a Code of Conduct should formally address.

The PostgreSQL forums should be a safe place, and rancor engendered
elsewhere should not be brought in.  Problems should be resolved in
a way that minimizes the chance of escalation, recognizing that
there could be miscommunication.[2]

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

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

[2] http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/2016/01/21/brown-gay-sign-causes-amusing-misunderstanding/79116720/

On 1/22/2016 2:57 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
>
> On 01/22/2016 03:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some
>> while ago. There is definitely more than one way to do this. Best
>> regards, A
> Just a gut feeling, but I think this thread had driven the rest of the
> regulars to drink at a bar without wifi

hmmm, not happy hour on the left coast for a couple more hours :-/

(apologies to any recovering alcoholics out there, this was not meant as
a taunt or anything)

--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
> what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
> present.

Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Ruby communities. Shitstorms are not unusual when people ask for a
CoC.

> Not only do I want that, but I thought we had it.  I have still not
> seen anything to show me otherwise; the hypothetical examples I can
> remember seeing on these recent threads bear no resemblance to
> anything I can remember ever seeing on the PostgreSQL lists.  Can
> you point to something as an example of the kind of behavior that
> you think a Code of Conduct would have prevented?

My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if not an outright violation. But one can
argueby another point (“tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds. So the
demarcationsof right and wrong are too easily subject to debate and further disagreement. Less ambiguity and
contradictionis required. 

> Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
> statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
> to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
> make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
> it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.

Some of us do not need protection; we are already privileged members of the community. Therefor it’s important to spell
outwhom we aim to protect. 

> In particular, I think that if (hypothetically) someone who is part
> of the community makes some idiotic, offensive, insensitive
> statement of blathering idiocy *outside PostgreSQL forums*, they
> should enjoy the same right to respect and prevention of attack *on
> the PostgreSQL forums* as everyone else.

What if they psychologically abused someone in person, perhaps another member of the community, but in a non-community
context?Should there be no repercussions? 

> They just better not
> repeat the idiocy here.  I would hope that major contributors would
> keep in mind the impact that such statements in other venues might
> have on the public perception of the community.  I've come around
> to the point of view that encouraging such consideration is outside
> the scope of what a Code of Conduct should formally address.

In my above example, the victim of the abuse would not feel safe in our community, because their abuser would still be
amember in good standing. Even if they reported that behavior, the would have no expectation of anything being done to
addressit. In this example, the abuser ends up protected by the CoC while the victim is not. 

This is a very real thing that happens to real people in communities every day. IME, we want people to feel safe
reportingincidents even if they occur outside the community, and that such reports will be taken seriously, with an
explicitpolicy for doing so. 

> The PostgreSQL forums should be a safe place, and rancor engendered
> elsewhere should not be brought in.  Problems should be resolved in
> a way that minimizes the chance of escalation, recognizing that
> there could be miscommunication.[2]

Rancor isn’t the problem as much as abuse. And most abuse you can’t see unless the targets of such abuse feel safe
reportingthem. 

Limiting the policy to community forums is insufficient for making people feel safe. This is the whole reason for
v1.3.0of the Contributor Covenant: 

  https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/blob/master/changelog#L7

Best,

David

On 01/22/2016 03:31 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
>> what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
>> present.
>
> Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Ruby communities. Shitstorms are not unusual when people ask for a
CoC.
>
>> Not only do I want that, but I thought we had it.  I have still not
>> seen anything to show me otherwise; the hypothetical examples I can
>> remember seeing on these recent threads bear no resemblance to
>> anything I can remember ever seeing on the PostgreSQL lists.  Can
>> you point to something as an example of the kind of behavior that
>> you think a Code of Conduct would have prevented?
>
> My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if not an outright violation. But one
canargue by another point (“tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds. So the
demarcationsof right and wrong are too easily subject to debate and further disagreement. Less ambiguity and
contradictionis required. 
>
>> Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
>> statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
>> to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
>> make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
>> it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.
>
> Some of us do not need protection; we are already privileged members of the community. Therefor it’s important to
spellout whom we aim to protect. 

The above is exactly where I figured this was going to go, loaded
buzzwords, in this case privilege. The fact that it is a buzzword is not
of consequence, the fact that it is profiling is. Basically it says we
can look at the color of someone's skin and along with their sex
determine where to slot them, without reference to what they actually
think or their life experiences. Now if you want to claim privilege for
yourself fine, but making a generic statement of privilege is offensive
to me.

>
>> In particular, I think that if (hypothetically) someone who is part
>> of the community makes some idiotic, offensive, insensitive
>> statement of blathering idiocy *outside PostgreSQL forums*, they
>> should enjoy the same right to respect and prevention of attack *on
>> the PostgreSQL forums* as everyone else.
>
> What if they psychologically abused someone in person, perhaps another member of the community, but in a
non-communitycontext? Should there be no repercussions? 


>
>> They just better not
>> repeat the idiocy here.  I would hope that major contributors would
>> keep in mind the impact that such statements in other venues might
>> have on the public perception of the community.  I've come around
>> to the point of view that encouraging such consideration is outside
>> the scope of what a Code of Conduct should formally address.
>
> In my above example, the victim of the abuse would not feel safe in our community, because their abuser would still
bea member in good standing. Even if they reported that behavior, the would have no expectation of anything being done
toaddress it. In this example, the abuser ends up protected by the CoC while the victim is not. 
>
> This is a very real thing that happens to real people in communities every day. IME, we want people to feel safe
reportingincidents even if they occur outside the community, and that such reports will be taken seriously, with an
explicitpolicy for doing so. 
>
>> The PostgreSQL forums should be a safe place, and rancor engendered
>> elsewhere should not be brought in.  Problems should be resolved in
>> a way that minimizes the chance of escalation, recognizing that
>> there could be miscommunication.[2]
>
> Rancor isn’t the problem as much as abuse. And most abuse you can’t see unless the targets of such abuse feel safe
reportingthem. 
>
> Limiting the policy to community forums is insufficient for making people feel safe. This is the whole reason for
v1.3.0of the Contributor Covenant: 
>
>    https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/blob/master/changelog#L7
>
> Best,
>
> David
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On 01/22/2016 03:31 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

> My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if not an outright violation. But one
canargue by another point (“tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds. So the
demarcationsof right and wrong are too easily subject to debate and further disagreement. Less ambiguity and
contradictionis required. 

You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the
reason.

>
>> Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
>> statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
>> to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
>> make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
>> it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.
>
> Some of us do not need protection; we are already privileged members of the community. Therefor it’s important to
spellout whom we aim to protect. 
>

A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.


Sincerely,

JD



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

On 22 January 2016 at 23:31, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
>> what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
>> present.
>
> Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Ruby communities. Shitstorms are not unusual when people ask for a
CoC.

No, shitstorms are not unusual when people aggressively and
unreasonably shout and scream like spoilt children to get their own
way. Thus far there has mostly been reasonable argument on both sides.

> My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if not an outright violation.
> But one can argue by another point (“tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within
bounds.

I and many others have already invalidated this point and yet without
answering them you continue to push it as truth. You're currently
hovering extremely close to the "destructive troll" box, to be honest.

> What if they psychologically abused someone in person, perhaps another member of the community,
> but in a non-community context? Should there be no repercussions?

Here? No. Postgres is not in the business of enforcing the law, or
indeed of enforcing one person's idea of acceptable behaviour.

> In my above example, the victim of the abuse would not feel safe in our community, because their
> abuser would still be a member in good standing. Even if they reported that behavior, the would have
> no expectation of anything being done to address it. In this example, the abuser ends up protected by
> the CoC while the victim is not.

Not true. The victim has the same level of protection as the abuser
within the community context.

Outside the community context Postgres has little or no impact. We
(when I say "we" I mean the community) could bar someone from the
community and it would have no impact on the hypothetical situation
you describe. Further, we do not have the resource to investigate to a
legal satisfaction any evidence that may or may not exist, so we would
(if we arbitrarily made decisions about a community member based on
another member's say-so) lay ourselves open to legal challenge if the
actions we took did actually impact on that member's ability to earn a
living.

> This is a very real thing that happens to real people in communities every day. IME, we want people to feel safe
reportingincidents even if they occur outside the community, and that such reports will be taken seriously, with an
explicitpolicy for doing so. 

Please don't put "we want" when it's been made explicitly clear that a
significant number of "we" do not, unless you meant "IMO" rather than
"IME"

> Limiting the policy to community forums is insufficient for making people feel safe.
> This is the whole reason for v1.3.0 of the Contributor Covenant:

It was made clear very early on in the discussion that that is the
reason why it will not be adopted.

Geoff

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the reason.

You say, that, and yet someone will. Think about law: if laws contradict each other, a person accused of violating one
lawwill use the other in their defense. 

> A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.

Says someone who requires no protection at all.

Best,

David

On 01/23/2016 10:07 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>> You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the reason.
>
> You say, that, and yet someone will. Think about law: if laws contradict each other, a person accused of violating
onelaw will use the other in their defense. 
>
>> A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.
>
> Says someone who requires no protection at all.

David,

I appreciate that this topic is close to your heart and that you are
very passionate about it. I would counsel you to try and be objective
and work toward a solution that people will be willing to support. That
support will require compromise.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake




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

On 23 January 2016 at 18:07, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.
>
> Says someone who requires no protection at all.

I must object to the repeated assertions that certain people in this
community require no protection, or have no reason to, as a way of
discounting their arguments.

In addition you might appreciate the irony if you took the time to
consider the (reasonably recent) history of people with names like his
before stating that Josh requires no protection. Everyone is entitled
to the same level of protection, whatever their race, gender
alignment, sexuality or whatever, and that includes us white
middle-class men, however guilty you appear to feel the need to be
about being one.

Geoff

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:12:15 +0000
Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:

> On 23 January 2016 at 18:07, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com>
> wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
> > wrote:
> >> A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.
> >
> > Says someone who requires no protection at all.
>
> I must object to the repeated assertions that certain people in this
> community require no protection, or have no reason to, as a way of
> discounting their arguments.
>
> In addition you might appreciate the irony if you took the time to
> consider the (reasonably recent) history of people with names like his
> before stating that Josh requires no protection. Everyone is entitled
> to the same level of protection, whatever their race, gender
> alignment, sexuality or whatever, and that includes us white
> middle-class men, however guilty you appear to feel the need to be
> about being one.

I'm reminded of a person on a computer on a no-Internet-connection LAN
saying that everyone needs equal protection from firewalls. Ummm, no.
The Internet connected firewall has many, many more attempts made
against it than the guy on the island LAN.

We all need protection --- this is true. But the transsexual has much
more bad verbiage aimed at "his (her) kind" than a run of the mill,
average person, whatever that may be.

When you go to computer conferences, how often does someone put their
hands all over you? Read this:

http://blog.valerieaurora.org/2010/11/08/its-not-just-noirin/

If you think the author of the preceding article is lying, google the
combination of "groped" and "Linux conference". Women are the minority
at these conferences, yet many more hands reach out and grab them.

We all need the necessary protection, which is not necessarily equal
protection, because some of us are subjected to much more harassment.
And I think we all need to walk a mile in other peoples shoes before
assuming others need only the meager amount of protection we need.

SteveT

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

Hi PostgreSQL General.

I get that my short, snarky posts don’t help my argument, but I admit to being a bit frustrated that the posts wherein
Ihave tried to lay out a position get little or no response. So let me try again. 

1. Items in the current draft of the CoC can be manipulated by abusers to claim that they were just expressing an
opinionor were ignorant of their tone. The ability to say that, and reference a specific item in the CoC when doing so,
introducesan element of inconsistency that can lead people to doubt that statements are in violation of the CoC. One
mightthink that “You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the reason”, and yet that is exactly
whatis likely to happen. One can, and one will, and then how will those evaluating a case of reported abuse handle it?
Ifsomeone says, “I was abused as defined in Bullet 2,” but the abuser says, “I am protected in my speech by Bullets 1
and3,” what’s going to happen? 

Related: http://paddy.io/posts/professional-concerns/

2. This document has been written and edited, in the main, by people who have not, to my knowledge, experienced the
kindof abuse we want to prevent. Nor do they have experience in writing a document like this in such a way to make it
consistentand effective, and to make targets of abuse feel safe here. We really should be taking advantage of the
expertiseof those who have experienced these issues, who have seen what has worked and what hasn’t, and can advise us
onthe most likely approach for success. The Contributor Covenant tries to encapsulate such expertise in a way that’s
easyfor communities to develop. But if our community doesn’t like the Covenant, I think we should bring in the
expertiseto help us craft a document that’s likely to be the most effective. There are a number of consultants in this
spacewho have tremendously helped other communities I’ve participated in, such as the XOXO Festival. 

3. If I understand correctly, the impetus for adopting a CoC (which, believe me, I laud in no uncertain terms) was this
postby Randi Harper about her experience reporting abuse to the FreeBSD community: 

  http://blog.randi.io/2015/12/31/the-developer-formerly-known-as-freebsdgirl/

Ideally, by adopting a CoC and an enforcement policy, we can try to prevent bad experiences for people reporting abuse.
However,in this example, the abuse, which came from a FreeBSD committer and was aimed at another, took place on
Twitter,not in a FreeBSD forum. However, the rules of the FreeBSD community at that time did not cover abuse outside
sanctionedcommunity forums. As a result, the FreeBSd core: 

> weren’t willing to take action on threats because they didn’t happen on the mailing list — despite them happening in
avenue where the committer publicly identified himself as a member of the project.  

The proposed CoC does not cover this situation, either, at least not as directly as it should. So if someone who
identifiedas a PostgreSQL community member abused someone else on Twitter or Facebook, and that abuse was reported to
thePostgreSQL community (by whatever policy the community will need to spell out), will the abuse enforcement team be
ableto do anything about it, by the proposed CoC? I suspect not. The third bullet item refers only to the community
“collaborativespace”. It should also cover forums outside the community’s own collaborative spaces. Otherwise, if
someonein our community abuses someone in an outside forum, but is allowed to continue to participate in the community,
thenthe target of that abuse will not feel safe here. The abuser, however, will. Is that an outcome we really want? If
not,how do we make explicit that it won’t happen? 

Look, I’m not an authority on this stuff, either. But I understand that rules, such as those in a Code of Conduct, must
beexplicit and as unambiguous as language will allow. And it’s pretty easy for me, a non-expert in the fields of law or
abusemitigation, to see oversights and contradictions that can and will be exploited by abusers. We should close them.
Ideallythe core organization would hire one or more experts to help us out, or else would take advantage of the fruits
oftheir past labors and adopt something that has already been thought-through by experts and adopted by a wide range of
communities.Will it be perfect? No. Can we make it good enough to make people feel safe? Absolutely. 

This isn’t about compromise, mind. If what we want to do is to let people know that they are safe from abuse in this
communityand from members of this community, that we take abuse seriously and will act on reports expeditiously, then I
don’tsee how the proposed CoC get us there. 

Best,

David

On 01/23/2016 01:59 PM, Steve Litt wrote:

> We all need the necessary protection, which is not necessarily equal
> protection, because some of us are subjected to much more harassment.
> And I think we all need to walk a mile in other peoples shoes before
> assuming others need only the meager amount of protection we need.

Everyone needs protection in some form or another.

The point, is that everyone deserves a fair shake and equal shake. There
is no arguing that except to make a argument on false pretence.

If a woman is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k.
If a man is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k.
If a transgender is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k.
If a homosexual is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k.

I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that
generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse? The
individual started the conversation and I am also classified as obese
(barely, I won't be in a month).

I have been accused of being sexist because I asked if there was chalk
(for bouldering) that was better for women because their skin is
generally softer and the chalk wasn't staying on the respective persons
hand. A scientific sexist fact.

I have been accused of being sexist because I said it wasn't sexist that
Samsung doesn't make full feature/performance phones that are smaller
for a woman's hands.

The tl;dr; here is:

If a "human" is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k..
If a human is not being respected in this community, it is not o.k..

Anything that tries to create an unbalanced protected class is a
non-starter.


Sincerely,

JD


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

On 23 January 2016 at 21:59, Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
> I'm reminded of a person on a computer on a no-Internet-connection LAN
> saying that everyone needs equal protection from firewalls. Ummm, no.
> The Internet connected firewall has many, many more attempts made
> against it than the guy on the island LAN.

Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
to the same level of protection. I'm also making the point that your
Island guy might have a mobile phone that's linked to his computer
that you don't know about and you're assuming that cos he's on an
island he has no right to have an opinion on firewalls.

> We all need protection --- this is true. But the transsexual has much
> more bad verbiage aimed at "his (her) kind" than a run of the mill,
> average person, whatever that may be.

Fear and mistrust and a lack of understanding. The way to defeat that
is education and talking, not forcing a plan of action down the
throats of the people who are most likely to be inclined to be open
and accepting.

> When you go to computer conferences, how often does someone put their
> hands all over you?

I don't go to computer conferences because they're filled with people
who are far too smart and therefore it tends to make me uncomfortable.
Maybe there should be protection for my type (I'd describe myself only
as a good jobbing coder with a better-than-average problem-solving
skill) against ubergeeks so I'm not made to feel uncomfortable at
conferences? Forget that the ubergeeks are the people who make the
stuff work that the conference is there for, it's not fair that they
make me feel left out because my brain is wired differently, now is
it?

> If you think the author of the preceding article is lying, google the
> combination of "groped" and "Linux conference". Women are the minority
> at these conferences, yet many more hands reach out and grab them.

And there are laws designed to stop that sort of behaviour. It's
called assault and the police will get involved, because that's their
job. It's not ours.

Geoff

On Jan 23, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:

> We all need the necessary protection, which is not necessarily equal
> protection, because some of us are subjected to much more harassment.
> And I think we all need to walk a mile in other peoples shoes before
> assuming others need only the meager amount of protection we need.

Thank you, Steve, well said.

Best,

David

On Jan 23, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet
andexercise. Worse? The individual started the conversation and I am also classified as obese (barely, I won't be in a
month).
>
> I have been accused of being sexist because I asked if there was chalk (for bouldering) that was better for women
becausetheir skin is generally softer and the chalk wasn't staying on the respective persons hand. A scientific sexist
fact.
>
> I have been accused of being sexist because I said it wasn't sexist that Samsung doesn't make full
feature/performancephones that are smaller for a woman's hands. 

So are you able to recognize the ways in which those statements can come across as prejudiced? We *all* make mistakes.
Ideallywhat one does is to try to recognize them and take responsibility for them. An *abuser* will do neither. 

Best,

David

On 23 January 2016 at 23:39, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> I get that my short, snarky posts don’t help my argument, but I admit to being a bit frustrated that the posts
whereinI have tried to lay out a position get little or no response. So let me try again. 

They get a response; however it's not the response you want, so you
seem to ignore it.

> 1. Items in the current draft of the CoC can be manipulated by abusers to claim that they were just expressing an
opinionor were ignorant of their tone. 

No, they can't. I've explained elsewhere how this is not the case, you
haven't responded.

> 2. This document has been written and edited, in the main, by people who have not, to my knowledge, experienced the
kindof abuse we want to prevent. 
[snip]
> I think we should bring in the expertise to help us craft a document that’s likely to be the most effective.

Feel free to bring them in, but be aware of the absolute limits of
what the postgres community is prepared to be responsible for.

> As a result, the FreeBSd core weren’t willing to take action on threats because they didn’t happen on the mailing
list— despite them happening in a venue where the committer publicly identified himself as a member of the project. 
>
> The proposed CoC does not cover this situation, either, at least not as directly as it should.

No. It shouldn't. That's the point that everyone is trying to make to
you and the point that you are stubbornly refusing to accept.

> This isn’t about compromise, mind. If what we want to do is to let people know that they are safe from abuse in this
communityand from members of this community, that we take abuse seriously and will act on reports expeditiously, then I
don’tsee how the proposed CoC get us there. 

It doesn't help that you appear to be hearing and not listening.

Geoff

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 +0000
Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:

> On 23 January 2016 at 21:59, Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm reminded of a person on a computer on a no-Internet-connection
> > LAN saying that everyone needs equal protection from firewalls.
> > Ummm, no. The Internet connected firewall has many, many more
> > attempts made against it than the guy on the island LAN.
>
> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
> to the same level of protection.

The preceding two sentences form a distinction that will need some
elaboration.

> I'm also making the point that your
> Island guy might have a mobile phone that's linked to his computer
> that you don't know about and you're assuming that cos he's on an
> island he has no right to have an opinion on firewalls.

Come on, the preceding is contrived to the point of being silly. You
know exactly what I mean.

SteveT

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

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:09:32 -0500
Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com> wrote:

> I been pretty quiet about this whole discussion, but now I have to
> ask the following questions.
>
> This is an INTERNET SUPPORT FORUM.
> Just how in the hell is it possible for anyone to have their actual
> sex detected unless they voluntarily provide it?

Given that my name is "Steve", I doubt anyone thinks I'm a woman. If I
were a woman named "Stephanie", should I be expected to assume a
different name in preference to making rules against saying bad things
about people and groups, unrelated to the topic of the mailing list?

> Further to the point, how is it possible to harass sexually (or
> physically) molest anyone in this forum unless they provide
> information and agree to meet in person.

I could tell crude jokes about rape. I could a woman's worth is
proportional to her looks. I could arbitrarily attribute the lower
female participation in tech to lack of intelligence. If it were just
me, it would be just one asshole mouthing off.

But add a couple more like me, with minimal repudiation by others, and
perhaps the same old cast of characters shouting down any repudiation
with that tired old "free speech" argument that some always seem to
apply to completely offtopic negative spew, and some women who might
have made big contributions have left the project.

> Please, drop the argument about protecting against physical or verbal
> abuse,

Yeah, if everyone else does. But a code of conduct is actually a good
idea, because there are a lot of vicious, worthless clowns out there
who like to issue gratuitous insults.

> because it does not apply to this forum.

False.

SteveT

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

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:43:11 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:


> I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that
> generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse?
> The individual started the conversation and I am also classified as
> obese (barely, I won't be in a month).

Perfect!

I know a person who is fat because his/her (I'll call the person male
from now on) thyroid was removed, and weight control is extremely
difficult under those circumstances. Do you think he'd feel welcome on
a list where somebody said "generally speaking, obesity is a matter of
diet and exercise?"[1] And then perhaps someone else says he thinks fat
people are lazy.

Is my overweight friend going to set you straight? Probably not. He
knows how much antifat prejudice exists in the employment marketplace,
and doesn't want to do anything do the slightest thing to "out" himself
to potential networking associates who haven't seen him in person.

And for what? What does a person's weight have to do with a great
and powerful Open Source relational database? Not a dam thing.

Hey, if the conflict is about technology, by all means have at it. It's
an argument that needs to happen in order to produce the best result.
But when it comes to gender, gender preference, gender-assignment,
race, nationality, religion, body shape, or political party (unless the
party takes a stand on technology), the CoC should ban negative
statements about that crap.

[1] I'm not faulting your example. Your example is relevant to the
discussion. I'm faulting a hypothetical person who comes on the list
and says that, apropos to nothing.

SteveT

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

Sorry for top posting...

I like what you said at the end.... Shouldn't the simple rule of thumb be that the discussion on the mailing list
shouldbe project related and all personal references should be avoided instead of finding the balancing equation..
Someonementioned earlier that signatures could be offensive, but signatures are personal and I am not sure if they
shouldbe part of the conduct as that is not a statement made to an individual.  

Thanks
Rajeev


On Jan 24, 2016 06:19, Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:43:11 -0800
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that
> > generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse?
> > The individual started the conversation and I am also classified as
> > obese (barely, I won't be in a month).
>
> Perfect!
>
> I know a person who is fat because his/her (I'll call the person male
> from now on) thyroid was removed, and weight control is extremely
> difficult under those circumstances. Do you think he'd feel welcome on
> a list where somebody said "generally speaking, obesity is a matter of
> diet and exercise?"[1] And then perhaps someone else says he thinks fat
> people are lazy.
>
> Is my overweight friend going to set you straight? Probably not. He
> knows how much antifat prejudice exists in the employment marketplace,
> and doesn't want to do anything do the slightest thing to "out" himself
> to potential networking associates who haven't seen him in person.
>
> And for what? What does a person's weight have to do with a great
> and powerful Open Source relational database? Not a dam thing.
>
> Hey, if the conflict is about technology, by all means have at it. It's
> an argument that needs to happen in order to produce the best result.
> But when it comes to gender, gender preference, gender-assignment,
> race, nationality, religion, body shape, or political party (unless the
> party takes a stand on technology), the CoC should ban negative
> statements about that crap.
>
> [1] I'm not faulting your example. Your example is relevant to the
> discussion. I'm faulting a hypothetical person who comes on the list
> and says that, apropos to nothing.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/28
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

On 24 January 2016 at 00:15, Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 +0000
> Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:
>> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
>> to the same level of protection.
>
> The preceding two sentences form a distinction that will need some
> elaboration.

I'm not quite sure how. Maybe English isn't your first language?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/entitle
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/need

> Come on, the preceding is contrived to the point of being silly. You
> know exactly what I mean.

No, it absolutely isn't. Your point is "here is a group of people who
have no right to an opinion because XYZ". My point is that by
generalising to the group you are ignoring the individuals within it.

Geoff

On 24 January 2016 at 00:06, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>> I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet
andexercise. Worse? The individual started the conversation and I am also classified as obese (barely, I won't be in a
month).
>>
>> I have been accused of being sexist because I asked if there was chalk (for bouldering) that was better for women
becausetheir skin is generally softer and the chalk wasn't staying on the respective persons hand. A scientific sexist
fact.
>>
>> I have been accused of being sexist because I said it wasn't sexist that Samsung doesn't make full
feature/performancephones that are smaller for a woman's hands. 
>
> So are you able to recognize the ways in which those statements can come across as prejudiced?

No. None of the statements Josh describes exhibits any prejudice.

It absolutely isn't prejudiced to make factual statements. It may be
that the facts are uncomfortable, but it's not prejudiced to reiterate
them.

It _would_ be prejudiced to make an assumption about a specific female
climber based on the scientific fact that most women have softer skin.
It _would_ be prejudiced to make an assumption that a fat person is
lazy and eats too much.

It's a factual statement that the proportion of African Americans in
prison is proportionally high. It would prejudiced to a) assume that
because of this an African American you meet is a criminal, b) suggest
that the reason African Americans are in prison is because they're
inherently more likely to commit criminal acts.

Are we a bit clearer about what constitutes prejudice now?

> We *all* make mistakes. Ideally what one does is to try to recognize them
> and take responsibility for them. An *abuser* will do neither.

There you go with these pejorative terms again. Someone who disagrees
with your lifestyle and makes generalised statements about that
lifestyle which offend you is not abusing you, and yet as far as I can
see that is what the Covenant has been used to combat (and it appears
designed specifically so to do).

Geoff

Dear All,

There has been much development based on many good comments and broader participation on this thread that I have seen
inthe past which no doubt is the envy of many other companies and open source communities.   

However we seem to have moved away from the core goal of this thread which should result in better development of
postgresql'scommunity. As a result a number of questions have not been  answered. 

So can we please wrap up the CoC points as it stands? No doubt there will be future revisions.



Kind Regards




Farjad Farid

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:43:11PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> The tl;dr; here is:
>
> If a "human" is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k..
> If a human is not being respected in this community, it is not o.k..

/me likes.

Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346