Re: WIP: CoC V5

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
wrote:

> Updated.
>
> Tl;dr;
>
> * Removed excess wording
> * Removed non-.org controlled spaces in first paragraph
> * Added explicit discussion on explicit problem with last paragraph of
> Kevin's last version.
>
> == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
>
> This document is intended to provide community guidelines for
> creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
> collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in
> a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative way. It applies
> to all "collaborative space", which is defined as community
> communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted
> patches, commit comments, etc.).
>
> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
>
> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> should always assume good intentions.
>
> * Participants must avoid sustained disruption of the collaborative
> space, or any pattern of behavior which could reasonably be
> considered harassment.
>
>
> === END ===
>
> I have serious problems with the below[1]. My main concern is this and I
> am going to use real people to
> illustrate the issue:
>
> * I am a left leaning realist with some libretarian leanings.
> (I voted for Obama)
>
> * Andrew D is a left leaning lefist
> (He might vote for Sanders)
>
> We are both high profile contributors and often have public discourse
> on who is right or wrong. This is good. It is fun and we poke at
> each other but we continue to respect each other.
>
> However, there are people in this community that are far right
> and far left. It is not the responsibility of .Org to determine
> who is right or wrong there. Period.
>
> Now, how does this apply (as an example)? There are very loud people in
> this community who are pro-gay marriage and they are unable to respect
> those who don't agree with the position. There are also those who are
> anti-gay marriage that do the same.
>

Since this is a global project with a truly global contribution team it
actually gets worse than this because a lot of these issues are also
lifestyle/economic system issues.

I figure in this discussion it is worth mentioning my perspective as
someone who has now lived and worked on three continents. Not only can
these political positions be *seen* as personal attacks, they can *be*
personal attacks and often times we cannot see eachothers' social realities
well enough to see that this is so.

I am going to use same-sex marriage to illustrate the issue because you
brought it up and also because it is particularly clear, but one could see
similar cases made regarding almost any major political controversial
issue. I know a lot of people may see what I am writing below as
politically offensive But my point here is about discourse and the merits
of "no personal attacks" not about the policies of one country or another.

In Western, industrialized countries, for the most part, marriage is seen
as an individual choice, whether one wants to have kids is seen as deeply
individual, divorce is seen as a key aspect of liberating women from men,
and men and women are seen as interchangeable.

In many other nations, marriage and children are seen as family duties,
gender is closely tied to kinship and how capital and resources are
divided, and married households are the seat of business and production
rather than primarily economically about consumption. In these societies,
things like easy divorce, abortion, and same-sex marriage have very
different implications than in Western countries, and when you start
talking across international (rather than merely national boundaries) it is
hard for people to see where the others are coming from.

So it becomes very easy for an internationalized political stance to be
seen as obviously hostile to someone's desired way of life, and frankly on
many of these issues that goes both ways. Far worse, there is truth to
that sense that internationalized political views are about depriving some
way of life of legitimacy.

So it seems to me there are two options. The first is that political views
have no place in the community. The second is that we expect people to
treat eachother with respect regardless of political differences.

Personally I am in the second camp. I think the first is way
over-protective. I think it is fine to shut out the crusaders. But we
should recognize we are here to work together, come together, and do so
regardless of our differences.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

>
> If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
> a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that. I am
> 100% certain the below will cause issues. We need different wording
> if we are going to take that into account.
>
>
> 1. There is a distinction between words and actions taken within the
> community and words and actions outside community communication
> channels and events, but there is a gray area when using public
> forums or social media where a person identifies as a member of
> this community. Members of the community, especially those with a
> high profile within the community, should be mindful of this and
> avoid saying or doing anything in such venues which might create an
> unwelcoming or hostile attitude toward the community.
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
> +1-503-667-4564
> PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more