On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:35 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.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
