From: | Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj> |
---|---|
To: | "Psql_General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: CoC V5 |
Date: | 2016-01-13 10:11:25 |
Message-ID: | CAEzk6fdUQVo51zpOinXNGkn62LzYVb9PBKd+eGk16bxh0VOEsA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 13 January 2016 at 03:10, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid
> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, and
> Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points. "Of any
> kind" doesn't improve that either. I'm on board with the "personal
> attacks" part. Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be better?
IME attacks (even if they are purely technical) on one's code can be
as hurtful and equally as likely to result in alienation as personal
attacks. I'm not sure how you would word it but just concentrating on
personal attacks leaves open the sort of bullying that has been seen
in other projects.
Perhaps you could add something about valuing contributions from and
making allowances for those with less expertise. I know that's sort-of
implied by the "any person who is willing to contribute" phrase but I
would say that being explicit about it is more likely to encourage
non-contributors to contribute than what's been arrived at so far.
Geoff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2016-01-13 10:40:14 | Re: Function error |
Previous Message | Sachin Srivastava | 2016-01-13 09:18:03 | Function error |