Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 07:14 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
> <mailto:jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all
>> been moving.
>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft
>> CoC based on
>> the comments in this thread; see
>>
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>> <https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct>
>>
>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on
>> the page
>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>
>>
>> I really have to object to this addition:
>> "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community
>> members, whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org
>> <http://postgresql.org> infrastructure, so long as there is not
>> another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a
>> conference's Code of Conduct)."
>>
>> That covers things like public twitter messages over live
>> political controversies which might not be personally directed.  
>> At least if one is going to go that route, one ought to *also*
>> include a safe harbor for non-personally-directed discussions of
>> philosophy, social issues, and politics. Otherwise, I think this
>> is asking for trouble.  See, for example, what happened with
>> Opalgate and how this could be seen to encourage use of this to
>> silence political controversies unrelated to PostgreSQL.
>
> I think this is a complicated issue. On the one hand,
> postgresql.org <http://postgresql.org> has no business telling
> people how to act outside of postgresql.org
> <http://postgresql.org>. Full stop.
>
>
> I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...
>
> I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other
> software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they
> become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices,
> then they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we
> should have every right to sanction them by preventing them
> participating in our project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate.

We all know that PostgreSQL is the only database we should use and
anybody using a different one just hasn't been enlightened yet. :P

I think we need to define community member. I absolutely see your point
of the individual is a contributor but community member is rather
ethereal in this context don't you think?

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
*** A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is. ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****