Обсуждение: CoC [Final v2]

Hello,

I have been in Pasadena the last few days and wasn't able to respond. I
believe we are very close to finishing this up. Based on the comments I
have seen in the previous CoC [Final] thread, I have come up with the
following:

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

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

* Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

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

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

* Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be
tolerated.

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

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

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

We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe
harborto abusers. 

> * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just expressing an opposing view!”).

> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
>
> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> should always assume good intentions.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should recognize the intention behind what I said was
benign!”).

> * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.

Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.

Best,

David

On 01/23/2016 04:00 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>> This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any
personwho is willing to contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative space", which is
definedas community communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.). 
>
> We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give
safeharbor to abusers. 

The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let
whatever space they are in and the requirements of that space dictate
the response to their behaviour.

>
>> * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.
>
> This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just expressing an opposing view!”).

Can you provide an example of said behaviour that does not also violate
the below?

>
>> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
>> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
>>
>> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
>> should always assume good intentions.
>
> This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should recognize the intention behind what I said was
benign!”).

Yes it can and then when they are corrected, if they continue, the below
kicks in.

>
>> * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.
>
> Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.

Yes but as mentioned earlier, first comes the CoC, then comes the
enforcement policy.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Best,
>
> David
>


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

I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.

Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler
Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01
To: Josh Drake
Cc: Psql_General (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

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

We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe
harborto abusers. 

> * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just expressing an opposing view!”).

> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
>
> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> should always assume good intentions.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should recognize the intention behind what I said was
benign!”).

> * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.

Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.

Best,

David

On 24 January 2016 at 14:53, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
<farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:
> I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.
>
> Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

Sure, why not? Forget that at least 50% (I'm being generous) of the
contributors to the thread disagree, we'll just do what you want
because you're jumping on every thread and forcing your opinion on the
list.

We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that
you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come
about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to
pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it
actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or
you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter
what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or
against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities
and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC.

I'm sure that'll be fine, yes?

Geoff

On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:
> I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add
> these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?
>
>> From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler
Sent:24 January 2016 00:01 
>> We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made
>> outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor
>> to abusers. [...]

As I wrote previously, not "everybody" is happy with that proposal.
My opinions and what I do outside the Postgresql community is not
and should not be an issue for the Postgresql community to act on
within the Postgresql community.

The result of failing to provide this basic protection for individual
free speech can be seen in the McCarthyism in the 1950's in the US [*]
With all the open source projects that need help, it would be hard for
me to want to help ones that promote a return to that kind of vicious
and harmful philosophy, no matter which end of the political spectrum
it occurs at.

[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

On 01/24/2016 02:34 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

>         We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made
>         outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe
>         harbor to abusers.
>
>
>     The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let
>     whatever space they are in and the requirements of that space
>     dictate the response to their behaviour.
>
>
> Additionally, "if you are harassed, maybe you should consult a lawyer"
> is not a bad option.

I think that would be covered under support documents. Certainly we
could have a page that has lots of discussion points about things people
can do under these circumstances, but that doesn't belong in the CoC proper.

>         This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I
>         was just expressing an opposing view!”).
>
>
>     Can you provide an example of said behaviour that does not also
>     violate the below?
>
>
> What is abusive?  And doesn't any formulation provide cover for arguably
> abusive behavior?

It is rather impossible to be abusive and have it not be a personal
attack or use of disparaging words.

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


Sincerely,

JD


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

On 01/24/2016 07:36 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

> We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that
> you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come
> about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to
> pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it
> actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or
> you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter
> what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or
> against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities
> and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC.
>
> I'm sure that'll be fine, yes?

Enough.

Sarcasm is not productive.

This is a difficult topic. A good portion of this community doesn't want
a CoC at all. A good portion are upset with me for even bringing it up.
This is something that I brought up in protest because I believe that it
is crucial to the growth of this community. Remember that I don't want
one either but sometimes we do things we don't want to do. We still do
them in a professional and productive way because that is who we are.

If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going
to be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.

Do not turn our community into a SJW fight. We are better than that.

Sincerely,

JD




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

On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

> If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:
>
> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
> support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect this
> need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
> more general social or political questions.

That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is
when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That
position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community
doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian
conference to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all
people to feel welcome.

Sincerely,

JD


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

On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Sarcasm is not productive.

Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the
first paragraph, but not the second :p

The most significant problem I see with the Contributor Covenant
(other than my personal feeling that Postgres shouldn't have anything
to do members' lives outside the community, but that's just my
opinion) is the potential for legal wranglings that would ensue. Just
being in a position to say "we know what legal problems there are",
let alone being able to say "we know that we are covered against any
potential legal issues" would be prohibitively expensive.

If someone's prepared to put themselves in a position to overcome that
issue then it's just an argument over points of view, really.

Geoff

On 24 January 2016 at 17:34, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when
> -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That position
> was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community doesn't
> care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian conference to
> have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all people to feel
> welcome.

Apart from those people who think that topless dancers are fine? But
who cares about them, cos they're just unreconstructed bigots, right?

Geoff

On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to
> be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.

And as for being not helpful, I was being helpful and my helpful and
reasoned points were ignored because they simply didn't want to hear
them. My current attitude is a direct consequence of theirs.

Geoff

On 01/24/2016 09:39 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Sarcasm is not productive.
>
> Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the
> first paragraph, but not the second :p
>
> The most significant problem I see with the Contributor Covenant
> (other than my personal feeling that Postgres shouldn't have anything
> to do members' lives outside the community, but that's just my
> opinion) is the potential for legal wranglings that would ensue. Just
> being in a position to say "we know what legal problems there are",
> let alone being able to say "we know that we are covered against any
> potential legal issues" would be prohibitively expensive.

This thread is not about the Contributor Covenant. This thread is about
working the CoC that this community is already progressing through. It
is already clear that primary contributors in this community do not want
something as politically charged as the Contributor Covenant.

At its core, PostgreSQL is a practical community, not a political one.
That is why the CoC we are working on is practical, succinct and to the
point.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


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

On 01/24/2016 09:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to
>> be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.
>
> And as for being not helpful, I was being helpful and my helpful and
> reasoned points were ignored because they simply didn't want to hear
> them. My current attitude is a direct consequence of theirs.

I would ask that you not make this about yourself. We are here to
discuss the CoC. If you don't have productive statements to be made
specifically about this text, please move on.

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

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

* Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

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

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

* Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be
tolerated.




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

Josh,

Two changes I would like to the Coc as it stands:

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

Change the word "must" to "try to".
You yourself said some people have called you sexist and against obese people because of some statements you made.
They would say you did not ensure your language was free of personal attacks.  Only bystanders can judge.



>> On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

>> If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:
>>
>> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
>> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
>> support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect this
>> need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
>> more general social or political questions.

> That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when -core denounced the topless dancers at the
Russianconference.  
> That position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community doesn't care, won't care, or agrees
withthe right for the Russian conference to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all people to feel
welcome.

> Sincerely,

> JD

I would add another bullet:

* Participants try to look out for the well-being of each other.
If a participant feels strongly that someone is being unfairly treated or ignored,
then they are encouraged to speak up about it.


The reason for this last bullet is like in the example you said - if a woman says having topless dancers is wrong, then
shecould be viewed as a humorless feminist. 
If a man says it, it carries more weight.  So in this case, a man is better able to defend the concerns of a woman.

Similarly if I see a man being harassed by a woman, my voice as a woman carries more weight than a guy making the same
exactstatement  
or trying to defend himself.

Thanks,
Regina

On 01/24/2016 12:28 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> <jd@commandprompt.com <mailto:jd@commandprompt.com>> wrote: On
> 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
> If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:
>
> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which
> we support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect
> this need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in
> resolving more general social or political questions.
>
> That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is
> when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference.
> That position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this
> community doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the
> Russian conference to have those dancers. It was done so because
> -core wants all people to feel welcome.
>
> I don't know that this is really a political resolution though (aside
> from being the politics of community governance).    I don't see the
> PostgreSQL core committee taking a position on the question of
> topless dancing, just that it would be inappropriate for some
> participants and therefore unwelcome.  And that is position is
> reasonable.
>
> So trying a slightly better wording:
>
> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which
> we support). We expect communication in community fora to respect
> this need. The community is neither competent nor interested in
> resolving more general social or political questions. Nonetheless
> the core team does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where
> all people, regardless of background feel generally welcome.

I too strongly think the CoC needs something like this.  But two nits:

1) I don't understand what you mean by

 > ...aside from its usage in the public sector (which we support)

2) I don't think "neither competent nor interested" sounds right.
 a) Nobody is "competent" in the sense of an engineering problem.
    These issues are "solved" by one side gathering sufficient
    political support to impose their solution on the other
    (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse).
 b) While the "community as some sort of abstract entity may not be
    "interested", many members of that community certainly are...
    perhaps sometimes to the detriment of the community's primary
    purpose.

Perhaps replacing

 > The community is neither competent nor interested in
 > resolving more general social or political questions.

with something like

 > Such general social or political questions are often highly
 > divisive particularly given the diverse membership we strive
 > to attract.

would be better?

On 01/24/2016 11:28 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

>     That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example
>     is when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian
>     conference. That position was taken without consideration that at a
>     lot of this community doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the
>     right for the Russian conference to have those dancers. It was done
>     so because -core wants all people to feel welcome.
>
>
> I don't know that this is really a political resolution though (aside
> from being the politics of community governance).    I don't see the
> PostgreSQL core committee taking a position on the question of topless
> dancing, just that it would be inappropriate for some participants and
> therefore unwelcome.  And that is position is reasonable.

It is political in the sense of what is considered acceptable. A better
term than I used is probably controversial. The reality is, a lot of
society doesn't have a problem with topless dancers, nudity or porn.
There are some that think that it manipulates and abuses women. There
are others that think they have a right to an opinion on what these
women chose to do. There are some who are trying to do the right thing
but don't know quite how to go about it. Every one of them think they
are right.

>
> So trying a slightly better wording:
>
>
>     * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
>     political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
>     support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect this
>     need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
>     more general social or political questions.  Nonetheless the core
>     team  does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where all
>     people, regardless of background feel generally welcome.

Your wording boils down to:


* The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving    more
general social or political questions.

But in fact, we are. We have influence and the ability to exert that
influence (again -core and the Russian dancers). Further we are people
and people have opinions.

They key here is to accept that and enforce that acceptance on those
what won't. That is why the CoC exists.

>
> I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too.
>
> Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to
> make a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic.  Would
> that be off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an
> organization?

No. Nor does the CoC state that it would be.

>
> The point then is just to note that PostgreSQL is not a political
> community and has no intention of becoming one, but that one aspect here
> is to keep the peace so to speak.

Good. I believe this point is solved quite clearly here:

* The community is not interested in resolving more general social or
political questions.

“Don't use a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent word will do.” Mark Twain.

I believe the existing CoC solves that without the added wording above
but I am certainly willing to listen if others disagree. Consider that
if anyone started spouting political views (which rarely happens within
this community anyway) that the existing community rules (regardless of
CoC) would apply. It would become off-topic.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

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

Geoff and all,

I only seconded Dave's point which has been raised several times.

Here what he had written

Original point
> * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

Dave wrote
>This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just expressing an opposing view!”).


If 50% disagree that this can happen then fine. I will go with the majority.

But let's finalise this thread and move on.




-----Original Message-----
From: gwinkless@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkless@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 24 January 2016 15:37
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet); Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 24 January 2016 at 14:53, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:
> I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.
>
> Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

Sure, why not? Forget that at least 50% (I'm being generous) of the contributors to the thread disagree, we'll just do
whatyou want because you're jumping on every thread and forcing your opinion on the list. 

We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that you will provide indemnity for any and all actions
thatmight come about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to pay the legal fees for lawyers
(yourown and ours) to ensure that it actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or you're paying
forindemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or
againstone of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities and responsibilities of whoever implements the
CoC.

I'm sure that'll be fine, yes?

Geoff

Joshua for the record I am not upset about raising this issue.

However I am concerned that it is becoming counter-productive.

It is taking too much time away from the real work and aim of this forum.

Otherwise it is necessary.



-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
Sent: 24 January 2016 17:31
To: Geoff Winkless; FarjadFarid(ChkNet); Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 07:36 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

> We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that
> you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come
> about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to
> pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it
> actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or
> you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter
> what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or
> against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities
> and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC.
>
> I'm sure that'll be fine, yes?

Enough.

Sarcasm is not productive.

This is a difficult topic. A good portion of this community doesn't want a CoC at all. A good portion are upset with me
foreven bringing it up.  
This is something that I brought up in protest because I believe that it is crucial to the growth of this community.
Rememberthat I don't want one either but sometimes we do things we don't want to do. We still do them in a professional
andproductive way because that is who we are. 

If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the
thread.

Do not turn our community into a SJW fight. We are better than that.

Sincerely,

JD




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

On Jan 24, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:

>> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
>> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
>> support).  We expect communication in community fora to respect this
>> need.  The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
>> more general social or political questions.  Nonetheless the core team  does make an effort at ensuring an
atmospherewhere all people, regardless of background feel generally welcome. 
>
> I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too.

Alas, no, as it does not address abuse.

> Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about
atechnical topic.  Would that be off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization? 

If they make hateful statements about members of the community, or to interested parties who then report them to the
community,then yes. Otherwise, we’re saying we’re okay with abuse of any kind as long as it’s not on our turf. It’s not
politics,it’s hate. 

Best,

David

On 01/24/2016 02:14 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

>> Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about
atechnical topic.  Would that be off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization? 
>
> If they make hateful statements about members of the community, or to interested parties who then report them to the
community,then yes. Otherwise, we’re saying we’re okay with abuse of any kind as long as it’s not on our turf. It’s not
politics,it’s hate. 

O.k. now I am starting to see your point. For example:

Pg person A is harassing person B in the Rails community.

How do we deal with that?

1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails
community to deal with it.

2. If person B is in the Pg community they can request help.

I am open to wording on #2. I tried a couple of times but had trouble
not making it a larger declaration that I think it needs to be.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


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

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

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

What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution mechanism.  If someone feels the CoC has
beenviolated, who do they talk to?  How does that person or entity resolve things?  What confidentiality promises are
made?

--
-- Christophe Pettus
   xof@thebuild.com

On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> O.k. now I am starting to see your point. For example:

o_O

> Pg person A is harassing person B in the Rails community.
>
> How do we deal with that?
>
> 1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails community to deal with it.
>
> 2. If person B is in the Pg community they can request help.
>
> I am open to wording on #2. I tried a couple of times but had trouble not making it a larger declaration that I think
itneeds to be. 

How do you define “in the Pg community”? Is it someone who has posted to a known forum at least once? Someone who has
beento a conference? What if they have never participated in a community forum, but use PostgreSQL at work? Maybe they
wouldeventually submit a bug report or ask a question. How do you gauge that? 

Me, I don’t think you can. If someone reports abusive behavior by a member of the Pg community, it should not matter
whetheror not the person doing the reporting is a member of the community, only that the reported abuser is. 

Best,

David

On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:

> What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution mechanism.  If someone feels the CoC has
beenviolated, who do they talk to?  How does that person or entity resolve things?  What confidentiality promises are
made?

I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked. But it need to be put in place at the same time, IME.
Otherwisethe CoC on its own has no teeth. 

Best,

David

On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com> wrote:

> I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked.

I think those need to put in place at the same time.  It's very hard to judge how good or bad a CoC is absent a
reportingmechanism. 

I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this point, let the high passions moderate a
bit,and talk about the process.  That is the detail in which the devils will live. 

--
-- Christophe Pettus
   xof@thebuild.com

On 1/24/2016 2:51 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
> I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this point, let the high passions moderate a
bit,and talk about the process.  That is the detail in which the devils will live. 


Oh, <deity of choice>  save us from that.        my original quoting of
Warren Zevon's Lawyers Guns and Money goes double for 'the process'.

--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On 01/24/2016 02:41 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>> == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
>
> What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution mechanism.  If someone feels the CoC has
beenviolated, who do they talk to?  How does that person or entity resolve things?  What confidentiality promises are
made?

Discussed previously. That is to be resolved once the CoC is complete.

JD


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

On 01/24/2016 02:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

> How do you define “in the Pg community”? Is it someone who has posted to a known forum at least once? Someone who has
beento a conference? What if they have never participated in a community forum, but use PostgreSQL at work? Maybe they
wouldeventually submit a bug report or ask a question. How do you gauge that? 
>
> Me, I don’t think you can. If someone reports abusive behavior by a member of the Pg community, it should not matter
whetheror not the person doing the reporting is a member of the community, only that the reported abuser is. 

If it can't be defined it can't be enforced. That said, an abuser or
harasser generally has a horrible tendency to do it more than once. If
it happens here, the CoC will apply.

Sincerely,

JD



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

On 01/24/2016 02:51 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked.
>
> I think those need to put in place at the same time.  It's very hard to judge how good or bad a CoC is absent a
reportingmechanism. 
>
> I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this point, let the high passions moderate a
bit,and talk about the process.  That is the detail in which the devils will live. 

Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will
come up with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval.
-core will then also define how they want implement it (or even turn us
down). We are just doing some of the hard work for them so that they see
what the community and majority of contributors come up with.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


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

On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:15 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will come up with a CoC and it will be passed to
-corefor final approval. -core will then also define how they want implement it (or even turn us down). We are just
doingsome of the hard work for them so that they see what the community and majority of contributors come up with. 

I think that it is the understatement of the year (to date) to say that consensus is not emerging here.  Worse yet, it
iscausing huge rifts in the community while not resulting in an agreed-to product. 

I am pro-CoC, but without a documented enforcement and resolution mechanism, we might as well just add "be excellent to
eachother" on postgresql.org and be done with it. 

I'd suggest that -core take over from this point, and decide on a full package, rather than continuing this process
herein -general. 

--
-- Christophe Pettus
   xof@thebuild.com

On 01/24/2016 02:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

>> 1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails community to deal with it.
>>
>> 2. If person B is in the Pg community they can request help.
>>
>> I am open to wording on #2. I tried a couple of times but had trouble not making it a larger declaration that I
thinkit needs to be. 
>
> How do you define “in the Pg community”? Is it someone who has posted to a known forum at least once? Someone who has
beento a conference? What if they have never participated in a community forum, but use PostgreSQL at work? Maybe they
wouldeventually submit a bug report or ask a question. How do you gauge that? 
>
> Me, I don’t think you can. If someone reports abusive behavior by a member of the Pg community, it should not matter
whetheror not the person doing the reporting is a member of the community, only that the reported abuser is. 

In retrospect I revoke my support of this idea entirely. It just isn't
our jurisdiction. If doesn't happen in our yard then it isn't our business.

I would also note that this document isn't going to be the end all of
enforcement. Ultimately -core has the final say. -Core can determine on
its own if it wants to enforce against a particular community member
(with or without the CoC).

Sincerely,

JD


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

On 01/24/2016 05:20 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:15 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>> Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will come up with a CoC and it will be passed to
-corefor final approval. -core will then also define how they want implement it (or even turn us down). We are just
doingsome of the hard work for them so that they see what the community and majority of contributors come up with. 
>
> I think that it is the understatement of the year (to date) to say that consensus is not emerging here.  Worse yet,

You are wrong and the fact that we have gone from a motion style, to a
story style, to a continually and incrementally improving draft proves
it. This is the largest feature the community has tried to design and
implement. It is going to take a little time.

I don't see anyone rushing to commit or roll back other features.


> it is causing huge rifts in the community while not resulting in an agreed-to product.


This shouldn't cause any rifts. The community evolves. 10 years ago
nobody would even think of having a CoC. Did the community change? No,
the new people coming in had different requirements. Those people want a
CoC, they feel better when it is there.

If you don't want to constructively participate in the development of
this feature, nobody is asking you to. We are all volunteers. You are
welcome to not read another email on this thread and just wait for
whatever -core inevitably decides.

If -Core would like to step up and take this over now, by all means.
However, I think they are hoping that we are all adult enough to figure
this mess out ourselves so they can commit it.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


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

On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> In retrospect I revoke my support of this idea entirely. It just isn't our jurisdiction. If doesn't happen in our
yardthen it isn't our business. 

Then know that the current draft of the CoC is easily interpreted as giving shelter to abusers.

> I would also note that this document isn't going to be the end all of enforcement. Ultimately -core has the final
say.-Core can determine on its own if it wants to enforce against a particular community member (with or without the
CoC).

Yep. And as Chrisophe pointed out, none of it will mean anything without an explicit and enforced policy for dealing
withviolations. 

Best,

David

On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> You are wrong and the fact that we have gone from a motion style, to a story style, to a continually and
incrementallyimproving draft proves it. This is the largest feature the community has tried to design and implement. It
isgoing to take a little time. 

"The document has changed" is not a consensus emerging.  A significant portion of the participants don't want a CoC at
all,and they are feeling ignored.  A significant portion of the participants don't want this CoC, because they feel
it'snot strong enough, and they're feeling ignored.  Those two parties are not trivial; in fact, they make up most of
thepeople who are commenting right now. 

> This shouldn't cause any rifts.

And, yet, it is.

> If you don't want to constructively participate in the development of this feature, nobody is asking you to.

Participation does not need to be limited to copy-editing.  Of all the ways to develop a community CoC, we're engaged
injust about the worst possible one right now. 

--
-- Christophe Pettus
  xof@thebuild.com

On 01/24/2016 02:59 PM, Chris Travers wrote:

> But I will be crystal clear on my (deeply political ;-) viewpoint here:
> I do not want to see the PostgreSQL community get hijacked by groups
> that want to push Western values on the rest of the world.  I want to
> see us come together and build one heck of an economic commons that is
> usable by and reasonably welcoming to all without regard to, say,
> political or philosophical inclinations.
>
> I think that's what we all want.  Or it is what I hope we want.

I agree with you completely. The "reasonably considered" is a little
tough but keep in mind that the idea here is that the "reasonably
considered" is determined by committee, whether -core or another one. It
isn't going to be a dictator.

I want to thank you for your feedback on this topic. It has been very
helpful. Is there anything else you see within the context of the
existing CoC Final Draft that you do not like or would like to see changed?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

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

On 1/24/2016 5:52 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
> Participation does not need to be limited to copy-editing.  Of all the ways to develop a community CoC, we're engaged
injust about the worst possible one right now. 

so what would be a better way of developing this ?



--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:09 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
> so what would be a better way of developing this ?

This needs to come from -core, and then commented on as a complete policy, not just CoC with maybe enforcement
provisionslater.  Not because we're a dictatorship, but if they are going to be the ones responsible for handling
complaints,they need to be 100% bought into it.  A CoC with no enforcement mechanism is pointless.  If there's no
mandatefrom -core to have a CoC, this is just pantomime. 

Let's say I arrive a -general with a proposal that PG 9.7 should speak the MongoDB wire protocol in addition to v3,
completewith some working code.  The comments on -general come down to: 

1. A large number of people saying I am insane.
2. A smaller number of people saying, "Yes, but which version?"
3. A large number of people saying, "No, it should speak MySQL's protocol instead."

I can't claim that, on the basis of #2, there's "consensus" that the feature is a good idea and should be refined and
committed,but that's precisely what I see happening here. 

In any event, the tone of this particular discussion has gotten so out of control (basically, people are being told to
shutup left and right), that I don't see a consensus is possible right now. 

--
-- Christophe Pettus
  xof@thebuild.com

>> Participation does not need to be limited to copy-editing.  Of all the
>> ways to develop a community CoC, we're engaged in just about the worst
>> possible one right now.
>
> so what would be a better way of developing this ?

Of interesting note, the Ruby community is currently considering
switching to a CoC inspired directly from this draft of a Postgres
CoC.   The extremely long conversation can be viewed at:

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

On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, Brian Dunavant wrote:
> Of interesting note, the Ruby community is currently considering
> switching to a CoC inspired directly from this draft of a Postgres
> CoC.   The extremely long conversation can be viewed at:
>
> https://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004


again, people there are bringing up the 'feel safe' thing.    Noone can
help how people feel, feelings are highly subjective.   Some people feel
threatened by a fur coat on a random passerby, or by a woman not covered
head to toe in a burka.   I know people who don't feel safe unless they
are carrying a loaded gun, yet random strangers carrying guns make ME
feel very unsafe.

I'm just a postgresql user who occasionally contributes to this and
other mail lists, so my 'vote' on this has very little weight, but I
want to again state, in my personal opinion, IF PGDG adopts a CoC, it
should be as simple, terse, and generic as possible.   As soon as you
start enumerating possible social injustices you are on a very slippery
slope.   Next thing you know, you'll need courts, lawyers, hearings,
legislature, and are reinventing 'government', and you end up with more
overhead than actual code contributors.

meanderings, only indirectly related to this...

On the centos email list, some people were bashing gnome3 (probably for
good reasons).  I looked up the gnome project (mostly, read the
wikipedia entries relating to it, also a few recent blogs by core
developers).  Gnome started as a 2-man volunteer project, grew, had a
mission to develop a complete desktop environment unencumbered by close
source licensing issues that KDE's QT had(past tense), and by Gnome 2
had largely succeeded in these goals.    Now Gnome has a 'Project' (with
hierarchical management) and a 'Foundation' (with hierarchical
management) , and the last 'Foundation' chair was more interested in
organizing Outreachy, a 'outreach group for women in free software'
promotional group (a fine thing but completely unrelated to gnome), and
the gnome core developers are quitting right and left for lack of a firm
direction or mission, and lack of resources.   Everyone, including many
of those developers, are unhappy with gnome 3, but have no idea how to
fix it.

Over my long and checkered career in computer software, I've worked for
several startups where the founder was a brilliant technical person with
no business sense...  when the business got too big for them, they
allowed money people to install 'business people' as CEOs and stuff,
these business people had no clue how software development operated and
tried to treat it like whatever industry they'd come from (one CEO was a
former PepsiCo VP!   He top-loaded the place with MBA yes-men and
Marketing).   The founder withdrew into his own bubble off working on
pet projects, and the company floundered around for a few more years,
then crashed and burned.


--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

Hello,

This thread is deprecated. The CoC Final Draft has been submitted to
-core for final modification, acceptance or decline.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

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

On 24/01/16 18:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
[---]
> This is something that I brought up in protest because I believe that it
> is crucial to the growth of this community.

   Do you have any evidence to support this belief?  (Without referring
to an anonymous invisible mass, a single case or unverifiable anecdotal
evidence).

   Without any data/evidence either way I'd wager that the
implementation of a CoC will have exactly zero effect on developers
coming to or going from the project.  If gaining developers is your
motivator for pushing through a CoC, I for one believe it's a waste of
time and energy.

   I don't buy the idea that there's a huge cache of talent waiting in
the dark for open source projects to suddenly implement a CoC, at which
point they'll jump out and suddenly start contributing code.  Though
whatever anecdotal evidence I could produce to support that claim would
be as worthless as anyone else's, so:

   Surely considering the huge number of projects which have adopted
various forms of CoC's over the past months/years there are good numbers
to show if they have a positive effect on contributions?

   I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I suspect you'll find zero
correlation between implementation of CoC's and number of contributions
and/or contributors.


   A wider question to the other participants in this discussion:  Is it
generally an accepted view that the growth of the community (in some
sense) is contingent on the implementation of a CoC?

   /Jan

On 01/26/2016 09:03 AM, Jan Danielsson wrote:
> On 24/01/16 18:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Hello,

This thread is deprecated. The CoC Final Draft has been submitted to
-core for final modification, acceptance or decline.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

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

Well done Joshua D. Drake and thank you for the hard work putting up with so many comments.

Hope it is all worth it.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake
Sent: 26 January 2016 19:01
To: Jan Danielsson; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/26/2016 09:03 AM, Jan Danielsson wrote:
> On 24/01/16 18:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Hello,

This thread is deprecated. The CoC Final Draft has been submitted to -core for final modification, acceptance or
decline.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

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


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