Re: Code of Conduct

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:35 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

> On 09/18/2018 01:47 PM, James Keener wrote:
> > > following a long consultation process
> >
> > It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored.
> > Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down
> > everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's
> > opinions and concerns were taken into consideration.
>
> I respectfully disagree.
>
> I'm not sure which dissenting voices you think were ignored, but from
> what I've observed in the various CoC threads the core team took the
> time to respond to all comments. That does not necessarily mean the
> resulting CoC makes everyone happy, but unfortunately that's not quite
> possible. And it does not mean it was not an honest consultation.
>
> IMO the core team did a good job in listening to comments, tweaking the
> wording and/or explaining the reasoning. Kudos to them.
>

I said I would stand aside my objections after the last point I mentioned
them but I did not feel that my particular objection and concern with
regard to one specific sentence added got much of a hearing. This being
said, it is genuinely hard to sort through the noise and try to reach the
signal. I think the resurgence of the debate about whether we need a code
of conduct made it very difficult to discuss specific objections to
specific wording. So to be honest the breakdown was mutual.

>
> > There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is
> > overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always
> > simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.
> No, they were not. There were multiple long discussions about exactly
> these dangers, You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored.
>

Also those of us who had specific, actionable concerns were often drowned
out by the noise. That's deeply unfortunate.

I think those of us who had specific concerns about one specific sentence
that was added were drowned out by those who seemed to be opposed to the
idea of a code of conduct generally.

I would have appreciated at least a reason why the concerns I had about the
fact that the addition a) doesn't cover what it is needs to cover, and b)
will attract complaints that it shouldn't cover was not considered valid.
But I can understand that given the noise-to-signal ratio of the discussion
made such discussion next to impossible.

Again I find that regrettable.

>
> > > Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to
> > ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone
> > to join and participate in.
> >
> > I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social
> > ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this
> > is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social
> club.
> >
>
> Ultimately, it's a matter of trust that the CoC committee and core team
> apply the CoC in a careful and cautious way. Based on my personal
> experience with most of the people involved in both groups I'm not
> worried about this part.
>

I would actually go further than you here. The CoC committee *cannot*
apply the CoC in the way that the opponents fear. The fact is, Europe has
anti-discrimination laws regarding social and political ideology (something
the US might want to consider as it would help avoid problems on this list
;-) ). And different continents have different norms on these sorts of
things. Pushing a social ideology via the code of conduct would, I
suspect, result in everything from legal action to large emerging markets
going elsewhere. So I don't think ti is a question of "trust us" but
rather that the community won't let that sort of abuse happen no matter who
is on the CoC committee.

>
>
> regards
>
> --
> Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
>

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

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