On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:14 PM Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> > wrote: > >> On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote: >> >> >> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving. >>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on >>> the comments in this thread; see >>> >>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct >>> >>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page >>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.) >>> >> >> 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 infrastructure, so >> long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as >> a conference's Code of Conduct)." >> >> That covers things like public twitter messages over live political >> controversies which might not be personally directed. At least if one is >> going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for >> non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and >> politics. Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble. See, for >> example, what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to >> encourage use of this to silence political controversies unrelated to >> PostgreSQL. >> >> >> I think this is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has >> no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full >> stop. >> > > I'm going to regret jumping in here, but... > > I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other > software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they > become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices, then > they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we should have > every right to sanction them by preventing them participating in our > project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate. >
Actually, the easier case here is not being abusive to MySQL users, as the code of conduct really doesn't clearly cover that anyway. The easier case is where two people have a feud and one person carries on a harassment campaign over various forms of social media. The current problem is: 1. The current code of conduct is not clear as to whether terms of service/community standards of, say, Reddit, supersede or not, and 2. The community has to act (even if it is includes behavior at a conference which has its own code of conduct) So I think the addition is both over inclusive and under inclusive. It is over inclusive because it invites a certain group of (mostly American) people to pick fights (not saying this is all Americans). And it is under inclusive because there are cases where the code of conduct *should* be employed when behavior includes behavior at events which might have their own codes of conduct. On the other side, consider someone carrying on a low-grade harassment campaign against another community member at a series of conferences where each conference may not amount to a real actionable concern but where the pattern as a whole might. There's the under inclusive bit. So I don't like this clause because I think it invites problems and doesn't solve issues. -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
