Re: CoC [Final]

On 20 January 2016 at 19:05, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> >> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
> >>
> >> * 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 who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
> >> pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
> >> tolerated.
>
> > I suggest we remove point 3 entirely. Point 2 is sufficient to limit
> what is
> > said.
>
> That came about because of the point made by someone for whom
> English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone
> by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that
> was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant).
> Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but
> it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to
> language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people
> don't give each other some benefit of the doubt.
>

Which means that anyone who violates point 2 cannot be held to account,
because doing so would violate point 3.

I agree it is a great idea to assume the good intentions of others, but its
a difficult principle to enforce.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services