Let's Do the CoC Right
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 I missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the level of many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this community and others, who have. If those people are not speaking up here, I suspect it’s because they don’t expect to be heard. A bunch of white guys who run the project have decided what it’s gonna be, and mostly cut things out since these threads started.
But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered what sorts of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to word them so as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to appropriately address issues when they inevitably arise, so that people continue to feel safe.
So I’d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I propose that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have already put into this, and simply:
* Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor Covenant, unmodified.
http://contributor-covenant.org
* Put this document in the root directory of the project as CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It should also be listed on the main web site and referenced from appropriate places (such as the mail lists pages).
* Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a separate document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The reporting address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links to a number of existing guides we ought to crib from.
Best,
David
Attachments:
smime.p7sapplication/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7sDownload
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 I missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the level of many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this community and others, who have. If those people are not speaking up here, I suspect it’s because they don’t expect to be heard. A bunch of white guys who run the project have decided what it’s gonna be, and mostly cut things out since these threads started.
But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered what sorts of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to word them so as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to appropriately address issues when they inevitably arise, so that people continue to feel safe.
So I’d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I propose that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have already put into this, and simply:
* Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor Covenant, unmodified.
http://contributor-covenant.org
* Put this document in the root directory of the project as CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It should also be listed on the main web site and referenced from appropriate places (such as the mail lists pages).
* Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a separate document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The reporting address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links to a number of existing guides we ought to crib from.
Best,
David
Hi David, whatever be the race of the select few who built the CoC, the
categorization of them as white is inappropriate.. The CoC is meant to
be allowing free communication across all members of the community
irrespective of their color, race, sexuality, gender, nationality or for
that matter whatever their personal viewpoint is.
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.
Thanks
Regards
Rajeev
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 intentions and I read the whole text.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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://contributor-covenant.org. True I don't speak for all mixed race women or women or minorities or left-handers or windows users, or whatever special interest group you think I belong to. I speak for myself.
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.
A Coc if we have one, which I personally don't think we should, should assume all people are here because they find PostgreSQL useful and want to encourage its use and extend its functionality.
So like I have said before as an example PostGIS doesn't have a Coc listed on our website, but we do have this:
http://postgis.net/development/ "Getting Involved" section, which Paul Ramsey put together a while back, and made me feel pretty welcome.
Which essentially says - "we are individuals with a common love for this thing, get to know who we are, jump in to help us and your voice will be heard."
That's pretty much all I care about when getting involved in any community.
Thanks,
Regina
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajeev Bhatta [mailto:techie.rajeev@yahoo.in]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:00 AM
To: David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com>; pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Let's Do the CoC Right
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 I missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the level of many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this community and others, who have. If those people are not speaking up here, I suspect it s because they don t expect to be heard. A bunch of white guys who run the project have decided what it s gonna be, and mostly cut things out since these threads started.
But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered what sorts of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to word them so as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to appropriately address issues when they inevitably arise, so that people continue to feel safe.
So I d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I propose that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have already put into this, and simply:
* Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor Covenant, unmodified.
http://contributor-covenant.org
* Put this document in the root directory of the project as CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It should also be listed on the main web site and referenced from appropriate places (such as the mail lists pages).
* Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a separate document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The reporting address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links to a number of existing guides we ought to crib from.
Best,
David
Hi David, whatever be the race of the select few who built the CoC, the categorization of them as white is inappropriate.. The CoC is meant to be allowing free communication across all members of the community irrespective of their color, race, sexuality, gender, nationality or for that matter whatever their personal viewpoint is.
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.
Thanks
Regards
Rajeev
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 22 January 2016 at 05:25, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> 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 suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid.
Others have addressed the reasons for not going with the Covenant;
however I would like to make the point that, just because I'm a white
straight male, it doesn't mean that there haven't been occasions when
I have suffered from prejudice: I didn't talk the right way, my
parents didn't have enough money, I'm too geeky, I wore the wrong
clothes, I have a name that was a double-gift for mean kids (UK
readers will remember Rainbow, I expect) etc etc etc.
Admittedly most of that has faded since childhood but there have been
aspects of it even in places I have worked as an adult (thankfully not
where I am now) and we don't even have recourse to the legal avenues
that have been created for racial and sexual discrimination; it's
probably one of the reasons that geeks find ourselves in these
tech-based online communities so often - there's so little chance of
being bullied by the cool kids.
I also have a feeling that that might have something to do with why
there's quite such a pushback against the type of person who shouts
loudly and motivates others to form a mob to get his or her own way
(and therefore why the covenant is unlikely to gain traction here).
Finally, to open a new thread and effectively say "you know the work
that you guys have put in over the last month, I'm sure it's fine, and
I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but why don't you do it
Right instead?" is pretty insulting, don't you think?
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.
Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently when writing emails. This is because over 50% of our interactions are through body language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know each other's background, experience and capacities.
Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our freedom is automatically limited by other people's freedom. That's life whatever species we care to look at.
Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on this thread someone ,I have no doubt unintentionally and only because of current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. Even though I am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i.
As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need direction so we can keep the best of traditions for
whoever may come on board but at the same time have the flexibility to change with time.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoff 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 <david@justatheory.com> 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 suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid.
Others have addressed the reasons for not going with the Covenant; however I would like to make the point that, just because I'm a white straight male, it doesn't mean that there haven't been occasions when I have suffered from prejudice: I didn't talk the right way, my parents didn't have enough money, I'm too geeky, I wore the wrong clothes, I have a name that was a double-gift for mean kids (UK readers will remember Rainbow, I expect) etc etc etc.
Admittedly most of that has faded since childhood but there have been aspects of it even in places I have worked as an adult (thankfully not where I am now) and we don't even have recourse to the legal avenues that have been created for racial and sexual discrimination; it's probably one of the reasons that geeks find ourselves in these tech-based online communities so often - there's so little chance of being bullied by the cool kids.
I also have a feeling that that might have something to do with why there's quite such a pushback against the type of person who shouts loudly and motivates others to form a mob to get his or her own way (and therefore why the covenant is unlikely to gain traction here).
Finally, to open a new thread and effectively say "you know the work that you guys have put in over the last month, I'm sure it's fine, and I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but why don't you do it Right instead?" is pretty insulting, don't you think?
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 22 January 2016 at 10:47, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
<farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> 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 should have one. I'm aware
of the reasons why other people think we should, I don't need
educating, I just believe that its overall impact will be negative or
(at best) neutral.
Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently when writing emails. This is because over 50% of our interactions are through body language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know each other's background, experience and capacities.
So what you're saying is, email is a bad thing because we can't use
our normal prejudices in advance?
Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our freedom is automatically limited by other people's freedom. That's life whatever species we care to look at.
I haven't seen anyone making the argument that they should be allowed
to say whatever they want with no regard for others.
Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on this thread someone ,I have no doubt unintentionally and only because of current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. Even though I am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i.
They did? Apologies if I missed it but the only reference I can find
is that Jim said that he is religious about postgres, which has
nothing at all to do with your (or indeed his) religion. Indeed the
only person who seems to be bringing up religion (rather repeatedly)
is yourself.
As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need direction so we can keep the best of traditions for
whoever may come on board but at the same time have the flexibility to change with time.
You've given no clear evidence as to a) whether that's true or b) how
a CoC will actually help to achieve that.
I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is
defined by the people who spend their time writing it. If, in ten
years' time, some different people come along with a different vision
and set of traditions, then that's up to them, surely?
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Farjad wrote
A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.
Geoff wrote
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 should have one. I'm aware of the reasons why other people think we should,
I don't need educating,
Perhaps you haven't read all the threads. You are not the only person who has question the need for Coc.
Everyone knows people react differently when they are consulting face to face than on email. There is a need for etiquette but not necessarily a restrictive one.
Geoff wrote
I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is defined by the people who spend their time writing it.
But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their businesses no product will ever stay relevant to end users for long.
So everyone's problem and comment is relevant and valuable. Even though the postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and naturally have a greater say.
Personally speaking i like to learn all the time. If it is constructive and useful I don't mind where it comes from.
We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is trying to educate you. The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective and what is wrong with learning something new?
-----Original Message-----
From: gwinkless@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkless@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 January 2016 at 10:47, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> 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 should have one. I'm aware of the reasons why other people think we should, I don't need educating, I just believe that its overall impact will be negative or (at best) neutral.
Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently when writing emails. This is because over 50% of our interactions are through body language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know each other's background, experience and capacities.
So what you're saying is, email is a bad thing because we can't use our normal prejudices in advance?
Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our freedom is automatically limited by other people's freedom. That's life whatever species we care to look at.
I haven't seen anyone making the argument that they should be allowed to say whatever they want with no regard for others.
Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on this thread someone ,I have no doubt unintentionally and only because of current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. Even though I am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i.
They did? Apologies if I missed it but the only reference I can find is that Jim said that he is religious about postgres, which has nothing at all to do with your (or indeed his) religion. Indeed the only person who seems to be bringing up religion (rather repeatedly) is yourself.
As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need
direction so we can keep the best of traditions for whoever may come on board but at the same time have the flexibility to change with time.
You've given no clear evidence as to a) whether that's true or b) how a CoC will actually help to achieve that.
I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is defined by the people who spend their time writing it. If, in ten years' time, some different people come along with a different vision and set of traditions, then that's up to them, surely?
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 22 January 2016 at 12:08, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
<farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> 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 problem and comment is relevant and valuable.
Even though the postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and naturally have a greater say.
Well no. The Postgresql developers can decide whether everyone else's
comments are relevant to them and, if they decide otherwise, they can
say "no, thanks, we don't want to do that. There are several other
products that might help you, feel free to use those."
Eventually, the people who are asking for those things will either
move to a different database, or become developers either within
postgres or in a fork. That is how Open Source works.
We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is trying to educate you.
I'm not objecting to people trying to educate me, I'm objecting to
your implication that those people who do not want a CoC are simply
uneducated. I think it's fairly clear, given the amount of discussion
that has gone on, that the people who still don't think it's necessary
are likely to have reached an educated conclusion to that effect.
The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective and what is wrong with learning something new?
Oh, I see! It's not you who is causing me upset, but rather my fault
for taking it that way?
You really don't see the irony in that, given the context of the discussion?
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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.
WOW! Then I suggest put it in Coc.
-----Original Message-----
From: gwinkless@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkless@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) <farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> 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 problem and comment is relevant and valuable.
Even though the postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and naturally have a greater say.
Well no. The Postgresql developers can decide whether everyone else's comments are relevant to them and, if they decide otherwise, they can say "no, thanks, we don't want to do that. There are several other products that might help you, feel free to use those."
Eventually, the people who are asking for those things will either move to a different database, or become developers either within postgres or in a fork. That is how Open Source works.
We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is trying to educate you.
I'm not objecting to people trying to educate me, I'm objecting to your implication that those people who do not want a CoC are simply uneducated. I think it's fairly clear, given the amount of discussion that has gone on, that the people who still don't think it's necessary are likely to have reached an educated conclusion to that effect.
The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective and what is wrong with learning something new?
Oh, I see! It's not you who is causing me upset, but rather my fault for taking it that way?
You really don't see the irony in that, given the context of the discussion?
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
<farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> 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 point, whereas you've
descended to "YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD PERSON!!!!".
My work here is done.
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
No one has suggested you are a bad person.
The world is changing towards smaller more agile companies. For postgresql to survive it needs to be at the forefront of the wave.
It is difficult for everyone to cope with so many changes. You are part of the team and a good contributor.
So let's keep it that way.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@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 CoC Right
On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> 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 point, whereas you've descended to "YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD PERSON!!!!".
My work here is done.
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Geoff,
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 pointing to greater success for smaller more nibble companies.
I believe we need to say things honestly, equally frankly and as politely as possibly. Without frank consultation we won't get anywhere.
I don't think you are bad person. Just that you are resisting change.
Personally I rather see more contributions as it adds to the momentum of the community as a whole.
Hope this clarifies my position.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@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 CoC Right
On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> 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 point, whereas you've descended to "YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD PERSON!!!!".
My work here is done.
Geoff
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:51:24PM -0000, 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 pointing to greater success for smaller more nibble companies.
While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing
directly to do with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.
Regards,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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.
Identifying next major requirements and implementing it before the
competition.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@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 02:51:24PM -0000, 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 pointing to greater success for smaller more
nibble companies.
While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do
with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.
Regards,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> 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 that it was an inclusive discussion.
Best,
David
Attachments:
smime.p7sapplication/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7sDownload
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:39 AM, Regina Obe <lr@pcorp.us> 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 about controversy or other issues in the first few pages. Maybe I need to dig a little deeper?
Honestly, I like that other folks have really thought this stuff through, and it’s so widely adopted as to be approaching a standard for OSS.
Which essentially says - "we are individuals with a common love for this thing, get to know who we are, jump in to help us and your voice will be heard."
That's pretty much all I care about when getting involved in any community.
Right, but it’s not enough for other people, so insufficiently inclusive.
Best,
David
Attachments:
smime.p7sapplication/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7sDownload
On 01/22/2016 09:08 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> 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 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. To
the extent that the whole world was not included, then no. I for one
think the whole idea is useless because of the above, deciding what
value between 0 and 7.4 billion should be notified and who in whatever
value is chosen is more right.
Best,
David
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> 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 excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past. Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time.
Best,
David
