Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey(at)proteus-tech(dot)com> writes:
> > Is there some archive of the discussion that brought on this effort and
> the
> > considerations of the committee itself? I wish I had seen the earlier
> > announcements in 2016 as I would have definitely participated.
>
> If you poke around in our mailing list archives for early 2016 (Jan/Feb),
> you'll find a number of threads about it. Mostly on the -general list,
> IIRC.
>

I did go back and read through the 2016 content rather thoroughly. But
where has all the discussion been going on for the last two years? Am I to
understand that this effort has been going on in an entirely undocumented
manner? I find that difficult to fathom such a thing happening in this
community so I'm sure my understanding is mistaken. Where can we see the
details of what was considered and what drove the committee to its
apparently final proposal?

> > Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents within
> > the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
> > participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
> > brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the
> first
> > place?
>
> I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
> Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
> them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
> You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
> happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
> that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.
>
> In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
> length in 2016. It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
> the community wants a CoC. I don't think any useful purpose will be
> served by re-litigating that point.
>

I also don't want to re-litigate anything and I do trust that core members
and people involved with the effort are acting in good faith for their
efforts. I'd just like to see what that consisted of so that I can consider
it from a fully informed basis and not waste anyone else's time. I've cc'd
Stacey in hopes that perhaps this can be clarified soon. I would like to
review what was considered before I finalize any opinion about what's been
proposed.

thanx & best regards,

-- Ben Scherrey