Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

I find a lot of neo-con/trumpian political stances moronic, short-sighted, and 
anti-intellectual and therefore consider them offensive, an affront on my way 
of life, and a stain on my country.

1) Can I report anyone holding such views and discussing them on a 3rd party 
forum? 

2) Could I be reported for saying the above on a 3rd party forum? 

Obviously the pg mailing list isn't a place for such discussion, but is being a 
member of this community a deal with the devil to give up my right to free 
speech elsewhere?

Jim

On September 14, 2018 6:10:47 AM EDT, Chris Travers  
wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ilya Kosmodemiansky 
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers
>
>> wrote:
>> > 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 point has nothing to do with _correct_ discussions or
>> public tweets.
>>
>> If one community member tweets publicly and in a way which abuses
>> other community members, it is obvious CoC violation. It is hard to
>> imagine healthy community if someone interacts with others  correctly
>> on the list or at a conference because the CoC stops him doing things
>> which he will do on private capacity to the same people when CoC
>> doesnt apply.
>>
>> If someone reports CoC violation just because other community
>member's
>> _correct_ public tweet or whatsoever  expressed different
>> political/philosophical/religious views, this is a quite different
>> story. I suppose CoC committee and/or Core team in this case should
>> explain the reporter the purpose of CoC rather than automatically
>> enforce it.
>>
>
>So first, I think what the clause is trying to do is address cases
>where
>harassment targeting a particular community member takes place outside
>the
>infrastructure and frankly ensuring that the code of conduct applies in
>these cases is important and something I agree with.
>
>However, let's look at problem cases:
>
>"I am enough of a Marxist to see gender as a qualitative relationship
>to
>biological reproduction and maybe economic production too."
>
>I can totally imagine someone arguing that such a tweet might be
>abusive,
>and certainly not "correct."
>
>Or consider:
>
>"The effort to push GLBT rights on family-business economies is nothing
>more than an effort at corporate neocolonialism."
>
>Which would make the problem more clear.  Whether or not a comment like
>that occurring outside postgresql.org infrastructure would be
>considered
>"correct" or "abusive" is ultimately a political decision and something
>which, once that fight is picked, has no reasonable solution in an
>international and cross-cultural product (where issues like sexuality,
>economics, and how gender and individualism intersect will vary
>dramatically across members around the world).  There are people who
>will
>assume that both of the above statements are personally offensive and
>attacks on the basis of gender identity even if they are critiques of
>political agendas severable from that.  Worse, the sense of attack
>themselves could be seen as attacks on culture or religions of other
>participants.
>
>Now neither of these comments would be tolerated as viewpoints
>expressed on
>PostgreSQL.org email lists because they are off-topic, but once one
>expands
>the code of conduct in this way they become fair game.  Given the way
>culture war issues are shaping up particularly in the US, I think one
>has
>to be very careful not to set an expectation that this applies to
>literally
>everything that anyone does anywhere.
>
>So maybe something more like:
>
>"Conduct that occurs outside the postgresql.org infrastructure is not
>automatically excluded from enforcement of this code of conduct.  In
>particular if other parties are unable to act, and if it is, on
>balance, in
>the interest of the global community to apply the code of conduct, then
>the
>code of conduct shall apply."
>
>>
>> > --
>> > Best Wishes,
>> > Chris Travers
>> >
>> > Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No
>vendor
>> > lock-in.
>> > http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Best Wishes,
>Chris Travers
>
>Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Rob

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen

> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
> vitriol.
>

You haven't established that this is both 1) the PG mailing list's problem
and that 2) this can't and won't be used to retaliate against those holding
unpopular viewpoints but aren't specifically harassing anyone.

Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever appear
along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
option.

People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the mailing
list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the list.
How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.

Conferences are free to hold their own CoC because you explicitly agree to
it when you purchase a ticket, and it's governing interactions at the
conference
(or should only be governing actions at the conference.)

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
>> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
>> appear
>> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
>> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
>> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
>> option.
>>
>
> If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as reports
> and details of reports are to be kept confidential.
>

That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that the
attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence opposing
viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.


>
>
>>
>> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
>> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the
>> mailing
>> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the list.
>> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>>
>
> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
> interact.
>

So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the time. Baring
specific
agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim responsibility
of my
personal business?

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

> Community is people who joined it

We're not a "community." We're people using email to get help with or
discuss technical aspects of PostgreSQL. The types of discussions that
would normally be held within a "community" would be entirely off-topic
here.  We should be professional to each other here; we don't need to be
buddies. There is a clear difference between "professionalism" and
"community". A document governing interactions on this list is within the
right of the moderation, but leaking into the "real world" is an
abomination and perversion of what this group is.

My church group is 100% within their right to kick me out of teaching
Sunday School if I were to have an affair. Teaching Sunday School is an act
taking place as part of a community of people with a shared belief and
culture. My job would 100% not be within their right to fire me for having
an affair, as it's not a community, but a professional environment and my
personal life is just that: personal. (Baring an ethics clauses signed when
joining, I guess?)

Jim


On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Ilya Kosmodemiansky 
wrote:

>
>
> On 14. Sep 2018, at 16:17, Dave Page  wrote:
>
>
> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
> interact.
>
>
> I could only heavily +1 this. I can get from where comes the idea that
> community is only what happens just on postgresql.org or just on some
> other channel community uses. Community is people who joined it and CoC
> supposed to apply even if people use analogue telephones. This is about
> communication, not about communication channels.
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>

Fwd: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

I didn't realize they had replied personally to me.

-- Forwarded message --
From: James Keener 
Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct plan
To: Dave Page 


If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or
> harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then it
> becomes our business.
>
> If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and not
> something the project would get involved in.
>
>
And yet, none of that is made clear or establish or even hinted at in the
current CoC. Also, may I refer you to https://github.com/opal/opal/
issues/941 as a scenario in which an outside conversation can leak in and
become the business of the group?

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

> To many of us, we absolutely are a community. Remember, there are people
> here who have been around for 20+ years, of which many have become close
> friends, having started working on PostgreSQL as a hobby. We have always
> seen the project as a community of like-minded technologists, and welcome
> others that wish to join, whether just to ask a single question or to hang
> around for the next 20 years. I do see your viewpoint, but I would counter
> that coming here for help (for example) is quite different from calling
> tech support at a vendor.
>

I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore than
I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the first
time.

As I said, the rules can and should apply within the list, but applying
them outside the list is odd and wreaks of authoritarianism.

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

Yes. They can. The people who make the majority of the contributions to the
> software can decide what happens, because without them there is no
> software. If you want to spend 20 years of your life
>

So everyone who moderates this group and that will be part of the CoC
committee will have had to have dedicated their life of pg?

Sure, they own the servers, they make the rules. I get it. I'm not entirely
opposed to it, even if I think it's silly to ram something down the rest of
the groups throats.

Jim

PS: Also, what's with the personal replies? If you don't want to say what
you want to the whole group, I don't really have an interest in talking to
you personally.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

>
> Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established this Code
> of Conduct for community interaction and participation in the project’s
> work and the community at large." basically says?
>

No? What's the "community at large"? To me that sounds like "all
interactions" whether or not they're about postgres.

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

[James Keener]

>
> And if you believe strongly that a given statement you may have made is
> not objectionable...you should be willing to defend it in an adjudication
> investigation.


So because someone doesn't like what I say in a venue 100% separate from
postgres,  I have to subject myself, and waste my time, defending actions
in this (and potentially other groups who would also adopt overly broad
CoC) group.

One of the biggest drivers of plea-bargains for innocent people in the US
justice system is the expense of having to defend yourself. I find that to
be a travesty; why are we duplicating that at a smaller level?

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct

[James Keener]

> 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. 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.

> 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.

Jim

On September 18, 2018 6:27:56 AM EDT, Dave Page  wrote:
>The PostgreSQL Core team are pleased to announce that following a long
>consultation process, the project’s Code of Conduct (CoC) has now been
>finalised and published at
>https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/.
>
>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.
>
>A Code of Conduct Committee has been formed to handle any complaints.
>This
>consists of the following volunteers:
>
>- Stacey Haysler (Chair)
>- Lætitia Avrot
>- Vik Fearing
>- Jonathan Katz
>- Ilya Kosmodemiansky
>
>We would like to extend our thanks and gratitude to Stacey Haysler for
>her
>patience and expertise in helping develop the Code of Conduct, forming
>the
>committee and guiding the work to completion.
>
>-- 
>Dave Page
>PostgreSQL Core Team
>http://www.postgresql.org/
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Code of Conduct

[James Keener]

>
>  You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored.


I can accept that I don't like the outcome, but I can point to maybe a
dozen people in the last
exchange worried about the CoC being used to further political goals, and
the only response
was "well, the CoC Committee will handle it reasonable" which is not a good
answer, because
that's exactly the situation that we are worried about not happening! These
concerns were never
actually addressed and always just brushed aside -- that's what I found
bothersome and worrisome.

We shouldn't have to expect the rules to be applied fairly in order to
counter actual abuses of the
rules. I've seen it in other groups and have been the target of such
actions. (I had the gall to claim
that hiring practices that require submitting side- or open-source- work
aren't only detrimental to
women because they statistically shoulder more of the housework and
childcare, but also to
husbands and fathers who take an active role in the household and
childcare. It wasn't intended to
diminish the effect this hiring practice has on women, but to suggest that
it's a broader problem than
the conversation at that point was making it out to be. I was subsequently
silenced and eventually
booted from the group for that incident and another, in a social channel,
where a discussion on guns
was taking place and someone said that the discussion is sexist and this is
why there are so few
female programmers, and I had the impertinence to say that I know more
women who hunt and shot
for sport then men (it's ~50-50 in this area). Forgive me for not having a
favourable view of CoCs.)

So, it's not that I don't trust the CoC Committee, but I just really don't
trust most people. The clearer
the rules the better. As it stands, the rules are extremely vague and
overreaching.

Jim