Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 07:14 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
>>         <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
>>     <http://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 <http://postgresql.org> has no business telling
>     people how to act outside of postgresql.org
>     <http://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?

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****