Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> [ Let's try to trim this discussion to just -general, please ]
>
> Robert Eckhardt <reckhardt(at)pivotal(dot)io> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
> > <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> >>> 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)."
>
> >> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world,
> for
> >> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as
> 'community
> >> member' has no strict definition.
>
> > I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> > it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> > moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> > people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> Actually, that addition was in response to concerns that the previous
> version didn't delimit the intended scope of the document *at all*.
> So I would say it's more restricted now than the previous version.
>
> I feel that most of the concerns being raised today are straw men.
> If the PG lists were a place for political discussion, there'd be
> valid points to worry about as to whether a CoC might be used to
> stifle free speech. But every example that's been given has been
> not merely off-topic but wildly so, so I don't find the discussion
> to be very realistic.
>

Are people who simply post on -general the occasional help going to be held
to the same standard (as impractical as that probably would be) as those
who are members of the committee or core?

Particularly for the those who are the "face" of the organization (and that
doesn't just mean core members or committers) the policy should not limit
itself to "interaction[s] between community members" and the sentence
should be, IMO, adjusted to loosen the "where" while tightening the "who".

Beyond that I don't object to writing out explicitly the option to consider
"external" activity - I doubt it will matter in practice and if the
situation is severe enough that it does then core could do what they want
anyway and deal with the fallout whether a CoC exists or whatever its
contents. I do not believe that, for the typical community member with a
low profile, this will ever come into play.

David J.