El 2018-06-05 10:54, gilberto(dot)castillo(at)etecsa(dot)cu escribió:
> Hello,
>
> Maybe must include policy of money support from several at member from
> country less earnings.
>
>
> El 2018-06-05 10:45, Chris Travers escribió:
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/03/2018 04:08 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>>>
>>> My comments:
>>>
>>> 1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of
>>> problem. Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.
>>>
>>> 2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project
>>> into disrepute, ..."
>>> This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen
>>> outside the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be
>>> handled where they occur not here.
>>
>> This is good point. There are those who would think that one has
>> performed an action that brings the project into disrepute and a
>> similar sized bias that suggests that in fact that isn't the case.
>> This based on the CoC would be judged by the CoC committee.
>>
>> It is my hope that PostgreSQL.Org -Core chooses members for that
>> committee that are exceedingly diverse otherwise it is just an echo
>> chamber for a single ideology and that will destroy this community.
>>
>> If I may suggest: The committee should be international as well and
>> include people from around the world. The last thing we want is for
>> it to be dominated by people from one particular cultural viewpoint.
>>
>>> 3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered
>>> offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such
>>> conduct. "
>>
>>>> Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of
>>>> people these days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with
>>>> someone to have it called offensive. This section should be
>>>> removed as proscribed behavior is called out in detail in the
>>>> paragraphs above it.
>>
>> "considered offensive by fellow members"
>>
>> Is definitely too broad. The problem comes in here:
>>
>>> I might possibly say that "I'm the master in this area" when talking
>>> to someone on a technical subject. In the sense that I'm better at
>>> that particular skill, but some hypersensitive American could get
>>> their knickers in a twist (notice, that in this context, no gender
>>> is implied -- also in using that that expression "get their knickers
>>> in a twist" could offend some snowflake) claiming that I'm
>>> suggesting that whoever
>>
>> "snowflake", I find that term hilarious others find it highly
>> offensive. Which is correct?
>>
>> I agree with both concerns in the above exchange.
>>
>> This is an economic common project. The goal should be for people to
>> come together and act civilly. Waging culture war using the code of
>> conduct itself should be a violation of the code of conduct and this
>> goes on *all* (not just one or two) sides.
>>
>>>> I'm talking to is my slave! I heard of an American university
>>>> that doesn't want people to use the term master, like in an MSc,
>>>> because of the history of slavery.
>>>
>>> The PostgreSQL project already has this problem, note we don't use
>>> the terms Master and Slave in reference to replication anymore.
>>>
>>>> I've used the expressions "sacrifice a willing virgin" and
>>>> "offering my first born to the gods" as ways to ensure success of
>>>> resolving a technical issue. The people I say that to, know what
>>>> I mean -- and they implicitly know that I'm not seriously
>>>> suggesting such conduct. Yet, if I wrote that publicly, it is
>>>> conceivable that someone might object!
>>>
>>> Yes and that is a problem. We need to have some simple barrier of
>>> acceptance that we are all adults here (or should act like adults).
>>> Knowing your audience is important.
>>
>> I would point out also that the PostgreSQL community is nice and
>> mature. At PGConf US I saw what appeared to be two individuals with
>> red MAGA hats. And yet everyone managed to be civil. We manage to do
>> better than the US does on the whole in this regard and we should be
>> proud of ourselves.
>>
>>>> Consider a past advertising campaign in Australia to sell
>>>> government Bonds. They used two very common hand gestures that
>>>> are very Australian. Bond sales dropped. On investigation, they
>>>> found the bonds were mainly bought by old Greek people, who found
>>>> the gestures obscene. The gestures? Thumbs up, and the okay
>>>> gesture formed by touching the thumb with the next finger --
>>>> nothing sexually suggestive to most Australians, but traditional
>>>> Greeks found them offensive.
>>>
>>> Using Australia as an example, my understanding is that the word
>>> c**t is part of nomenclature but in the states the word is taboo and
>>> highly frowned upon.
>>
>> Again key point that a CoC committee needs to be international and
>> used to addressing these sorts of issues.
>>
>>>> Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!
>>>
>>> Correct. I think one way to look at all of this is, "if you
>>> wouldn't say it to your boss or a client don't say it here". That
>>> too has problems but generally speaking I think it keeps the
>>> restrictions rational.
>>
>> I will post a more specific set of thoughts here but in general I
>> think the presumption ought to be that people are trying to work
>> together. Misunderstanding can happen. But let's try to act in a
>> collegial and generally respectful way around eachother.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Chris Travers
>> Database Administrator
>>
>> Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com [1]
>> Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://www.adjust.com/