Chris Travers writes:
> Core has spoken that they will create one. I them that it will maintain
> the general political neutrality of the community (and again for the
> record, I don't see the topless dancer conference issue as one that
> compromised that political neutrality either). So as far
I was hoping to let this thread lie. However because I think there is a
need for people to sit back and wait for the draft to be circulated, there
are a couple more thoughts that are important to add. I am working on one
more blog post on the topic but will not further participate in this
discus
On 24/01/16 13:48, Regina Obe wrote:
This is mostly in response to David's recent comments. I should say David,
you are really beginning to make me feel unsafe.
By unsafe I mean my mental safety of being able to speak truthfully without
fear of being kicked out of a community I love.
I do not t
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:43:11PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> The tl;dr; here is:
>
> If a "human" is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k..
> If a human is not being respected in this community, it is not o.k..
/me likes.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers
Dear All,
There has been much development based on many good comments and broader
participation on this thread that I have seen in the past which no doubt is the
envy of many other companies and open source communities.
However we seem to have moved away from the core goal of this thread whi
> On 24 Jan 2016, at 1:48, Regina Obe wrote:
> So the point is stop assuming who has experience and who doesn't simply by
> how people look.
+1
To expand on that: Don't let your prejudices get the better of you. Assuming
that other people are prejudiced about you is just another prejudice.
Th
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Geoff Winkless
wrote:
> On 24 January 2016 at 00:15, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 +
> > Geoff Winkless wrote:
> >> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
> >> to the same level of protection.
> >
> > The
On 24 January 2016 at 00:06, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that
>> generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse? The
>> individual started the conversation
On 24 January 2016 at 00:15, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 +
> Geoff Winkless wrote:
>> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
>> to the same level of protection.
>
> The preceding two sentences form a distinction that will need some
> elabora
Sorry for top posting...
I like what you said at the end Shouldn't the simple rule of thumb be that
the discussion on the mailing list should be project related and all personal
references should be avoided instead of finding the balancing equation..
Someone mentioned earlier that signatu
This is mostly in response to David's recent comments. I should say David,
you are really beginning to make me feel unsafe.
By unsafe I mean my mental safety of being able to speak truthfully without
fear of being kicked out of a community I love.
I do not think we need a Coc and if we do, it's o
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:43:11 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" wrote:
> I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that
> generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse?
> The individual started the conversation and I am also classified as
> obese (barely, I won'
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:09:32 -0500
Melvin Davidson wrote:
> I been pretty quiet about this whole discussion, but now I have to
> ask the following questions.
>
> This is an INTERNET SUPPORT FORUM.
> Just how in the hell is it possible for anyone to have their actual
> sex detected unless they vo
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 +
Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 23 January 2016 at 21:59, Steve Litt
> wrote:
> > I'm reminded of a person on a computer on a no-Internet-connection
> > LAN saying that everyone needs equal protection from firewalls.
> > Ummm, no. The Internet connected firewall has
On 23 January 2016 at 23:39, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> I get that my short, snarky posts don’t help my argument, but I admit to
> being a bit frustrated that the posts wherein I have tried to lay out a
> position get little or no response. So let me try again.
They get a response; however it's
On Jan 23, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that
> generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse? The
> individual started the conversation and I am also classified as obese
> (barely, I won't be in
On Jan 23, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
> We all need the necessary protection, which is not necessarily equal
> protection, because some of us are subjected to much more harassment.
> And I think we all need to walk a mile in other peoples shoes before
> assuming others need only the meag
On 23 January 2016 at 21:59, Steve Litt wrote:
> I'm reminded of a person on a computer on a no-Internet-connection LAN
> saying that everyone needs equal protection from firewalls. Ummm, no.
> The Internet connected firewall has many, many more attempts made
> against it than the guy on the islan
On 01/23/2016 01:59 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
We all need the necessary protection, which is not necessarily equal
protection, because some of us are subjected to much more harassment.
And I think we all need to walk a mile in other peoples shoes before
assuming others need only the meager amount of
Hi PostgreSQL General.
I get that my short, snarky posts don’t help my argument, but I admit to being
a bit frustrated that the posts wherein I have tried to lay out a position get
little or no response. So let me try again.
1. Items in the current draft of the CoC can be manipulated by abusers
I been pretty quiet about this whole discussion, but now I have to ask the
following questions.
This is an INTERNET SUPPORT FORUM.
Just how in the hell is it possible for anyone to have their actual sex
detected unless they voluntarily provide it?
Further to the point, how is it possible to harass
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:12:15 +
Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 23 January 2016 at 18:07, David E. Wheeler
> wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> > wrote:
> >> A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.
> >
> > Says someone who requires no protection
On 23 January 2016 at 18:07, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.
>
> Says someone who requires no protection at all.
I must object to the repeated assertions that certain people in this
c
On 01/23/2016 10:07 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the reason.
You say, that, and yet someone will. Think about law: if laws contradict each
other, a person accused of violatin
On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the reason.
You say, that, and yet someone will. Think about law: if laws contradict each
other, a person accused of violating one law will use the other in their
defense.
>
On 22 January 2016 at 23:31, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>> I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
>> what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
>> present.
>
> Regina linked to some shitstorms in
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:25 AM, David E. Wheeler
wrote:
> Fellow PostgreSQLers,
>
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this
> document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to
> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry
On 01/22/2016 03:31 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“
language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if
not an outright violation. But one can argue by another po
On 01/22/2016 03:31 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
present.
Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Rub
On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
> what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
> present.
Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Ruby communities. Shitstorms
are not unusual whe
Frankly,
Can we create another COC (Code of Content) for this specific list?
My mailbox is full of non-technical (in my opinion) CoC discussions.
Which I grow tired of.
And to add to this completely impossible COC solution; in my life I've
constantly BEEN offended.
I've been offended financially
On 1/22/2016 2:57 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
On 01/22/2016 03:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some
while ago. There is definitely more than one way to do this. Best
regards, A
Just a gut feeling, but I think this thread had driven the re
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta wrote:
>
>> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first
>> mail to the mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope
>> made me come forward and say something, dunno.
Welc
On 01/22/2016 03:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some
while ago. There is definitely more than one way to do this. Best
regards, A
Just a gut feeling, but I think this thread had driven the rest of the
regulars to drink at a bar with
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:32:10PM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> that we do not attempt to "roll our own". Or at the very least, we should
> strive to understand how other communities arrived at their Codes and
> why it is working for them.
This is why I posted all that stuff about what th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
David E. Wheeler wrote:
(...good rebuttals to specific points of the proposed Code of Conduct..
> This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don�t
> want to be misunderstood. There is a lot here to let violators pro
On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta wrote:
> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the
> mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come forward and
> say something, dunno.
Thank you so much for doing so. Up to now it’s just been one more
On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
> Speaking up is a privilege often reserved for the in crowd and the
> revolutionary.
+1000
David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> (Replying to the digest post)
>
> Having watched this discussion from the start, I think the project
> would be better off without any CoC. The list has always been
> conducted well and if something isn't broken you shouldn't try to fix
> it.
FWIW, I agree that we don't n
(Replying to the digest post)
Having watched this discussion from the start, I think the project
would be better off without any CoC. The list has always been
conducted well and if something isn't broken you shouldn't try to fix
it.
--
Oliver Elphick
Lincolnshire, England
--
Sent via pgsql-
Hello,
I do not intervene much on the list and am not an english native speaker,
but here are some thoughts :
It seems to me that it is very hard to find good words (which should find
their way in other languages) to summarize what is a decent conduct in an
open source project.
Don't we all (or
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0300, Luz Violeta wrote:
> It's sad, because all those who participated in the discussion were people
> that are not exposed to the experiences we live (and by that, I mean
> everyone not fitting in the hegemony of that white guy in the IT industry),
> and by co
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 07:05:49PM +, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement
> social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to
> be an acceptable compromise.
In fact, they decided to implement PostgreSQL - and I cannot
th
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0300, Luz Violeta wrote:
> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the
> mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come forward and
> say something, dunno.
Not that I've got much to say around here ;-) but, welco
On 01/22/2016 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta wrote:
Hi David !
I totally share your toughts. I was following the whole CoC discussion,
and as a transgender woman found myself with a lot of sadness. Because
what happened in that discussion, happens in some other projects that I
liked technically and used f
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:53:28PM -, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:
> > While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do
> with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.
>
> All you have to do is to check it out.
>
> As to its relevance. It comes down to listening to everyone's needs
Geoff,
Are you a woman of color of Black descent? You seem to have the same exact
opinions that I do. How can that be?
Thanks,
Regina
-Original Message-
From: Geoff Winkless [mailto:pgsqlad...@geoff.dj]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:06 PM
To: Postgres General
Cc: David E. Wheel
On 22 January 2016 at 19:47, Luz Violeta wrote:
> And that's the foundation on
> which the CoC is being written. I saw the CoC go down, down, and down in
> content and quality, not taking stances for nothing and falling into
> generalizations.
As I understand it the main motivation for not wantin
On Jan 22, 2016 23:59, "David E. Wheeler" wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>
> >> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.
> >
> > Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else"
> > to explain exactly which
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:25:58 -0800
Adrian Klaver wrote:
> When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up
> either directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would
> expect verifiable information.
Maybe they can't.
Imagine for a second that I'm a homosexual,
On 1/22/2016 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David E. Wheeler
mailto:da...@justatheory.com>> wrote:
They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots.
Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely
statements like that would violate
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, David E. Wheeler
wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely
> statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and*
> the CoC suggested by others.
>
On 22 January 2016 at 19:37, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely
>> statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and* the
>> CoC suggested by others.
>
>
On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely
> statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and* the
> CoC suggested by others.
It may well violate the Contributor Covenant (my apologies, I w
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David E. Wheeler
wrote:
>
>
> They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots.
>
>
Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely
statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and*
the CoC suggested by others.
--
Magn
On 01/22/2016 11:05 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the
group because you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it
worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you
off-list.
On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheel
I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the
group because you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it
worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you
off-list.
On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian
On 1/22/2016 9:43 AM, Regina Obe wrote:
Reading the thread requires a lot of attention and also face recognition. So I
shall point out the actors and actresses in this conversation you should pay
close attention to:
ohgood(diety-of-choice). This could be made into a soap opera and
run o
On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Rajeev Bhatta wrote:
> Any process or change is perfected over course of time.. The current CoC may
> not be perfect but time will make it.
It is better than none, I’ll grant you, but it could be SOOO much better right
now.
> Ideas can be solicited from other gr
On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Regina Obe wrote:
> Again sorry for cutting thread. I just get the digest.
No worries. :-)
> Ruby is under heavy threat to adopt this, but they have not yet to my
> knowledge. Here is the thread:
Threat?
> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004
>
> Reading th
On Jan 22, 2016 23:00, "David E. Wheeler" wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>
> >> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues
> >> they’ve had there in the past.
> >
> > When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak
On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.
>
> Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else"
> to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable?
> Because the only way
On 22 January 2016 at 17:30, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the
> immediate confines of a single mail list. Or even the community itself.
> People have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help
> fixing t
David,
Again sorry for cutting thread. I just get the digest.
>> I am especially disgusted by the people behind
>> http://contributor-covenant.org. They have done nothing but to silence the
>> voices of minorities. That's being kind to them.
> Interesting. Got a link for context? I Googled,
On 01/22/2016 09:30 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve
had there in the past.
When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up either
directly or t
On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues
>> they’ve had there in the past.
>
> When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up either
> directly or through someone else. In doing so though
On 01/22/2016 09:21 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive
discussion.
To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject
to it had an opportunity
On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive
>> discussion.
>
> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be
> subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive.
It ex
On 01/22/2016 09:08 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
someone by anything is inappropriate.
+1
The fact
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:39 AM, Regina Obe wrote:
> I am especially disgusted by the people behind
> http://contributor-covenant.org. They have done nothing but to silence the
> voices of minorities. That's being kind to them.
Interesting. Got a link for context? I Googled, but saw nothing abou
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
>> for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
>> someone by anything is inappropriate.
>
> +1
The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean
petition.
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Karsten Hilbert
Sent: 22 January 2016 15:05
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:51:24PM -, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:
> The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail or
> software industry.
> The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where software
> is concerned.
>
> All the predictions are po
RAL] Let's Do the CoC Right
On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
wrote:
>>Geoff wrote
>>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an
> input.
x27;s keep it that way.
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 13:22
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the
On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
wrote:
>>Geoff wrote
>>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an
> input. Just yours.
Now I'm being reasonable and explaining my poi
l...@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff
Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 12:48
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right
On 22 January 2016 at 12:08, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
wrote:
>
> But Geoff, Without knowing
On 22 January 2016 at 12:08, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
wrote:
>
> But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their
> businesses no product will ever stay relevant to end users for long.
Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> So everyone's prob
erspective
and what is wrong with learning something new?
-Original Message-
From: gwinkl...@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff
Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 11:21
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet); Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right
On 22 Ja
On 22 January 2016 at 10:47, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
wrote:
> A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.
I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't
believe that we should, but that's not the same thing. Everyone is
entitled to their opinion. I don't think we sho
Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 09:56
To: David E. Wheeler
Cc: pgsql-general
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right
On 22 January 2016 at 05:25, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this
> document, with very little fe
On 22 January 2016 at 05:25, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this
> document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to
> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I
> missed you). I suspe
On 01/21/2016 11:00 PM, Rajeev Bhatta wrote:
Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
someone by anything is inappropriate.
+1
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.compa
David et. Al,
Sorry for top-posting but it's late, and I'm using lame outlook.
I haven't said anything recently, because I decided to open a bag of popcorn
and enjoy the Coc debate.
If you read my earlier posts, you should know that I am vehemently against
anything that sounds like http://contr
Am 22.01.2016 um 08:00 schrieb Rajeev Bhatta:
I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying someone by
anything is inappropriate.
Wow!
#3 of current CoC
"When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should
always assume good intentions."
I can see those inten
On Friday 22 January 2016 10:55 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
Fellow PostgreSQLers,
I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this document,
with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to benefit (only
exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if
86 matches
Mail list logo
