On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On 09/14/2018 07:14 AM, Dave Page 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. > > > We all know that PostgreSQL is the only database we should use and anybody > using a different one just hasn't been enlightened yet. :P > > I think we need to define community member. I absolutely see your point of > the individual is a contributor but community member is rather ethereal in > this context don't you think? > There are some fuzzy edges I guess (e.g. Slack), but in my mind it's always been anyone who participates in any of the projects communications channels. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
