CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers.

* Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just expressing an opposing view!”).

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”).

* Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.

Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.

Best,

David

On 01/23/2016 04:00 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers.

The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let
whatever space they are in and the requirements of that space dictate
the response to their behaviour.

* Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just expressing an opposing view!”).

Can you provide an example of said behaviour that does not also violate
the below?

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”).

Yes it can and then when they are corrected, if they continue, the below
kicks in.

* Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.

Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.

Yes but as mentioned earlier, first comes the CoC, then comes the
enforcement policy.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

Best,

David

--
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 Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:

On 01/23/2016 04:00 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:

This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,

productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to
contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative
space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as
mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the
community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers.

The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let
whatever space they are in and the requirements of that space dictate the
response to their behaviour.

Additionally, "if you are harassed, maybe you should consult a lawyer" is
not a bad option.

* Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just
expressing an opposing view!”).

Can you provide an example of said behaviour that does not also violate
the below?

What is abusive? And doesn't any formulation provide cover for arguably
abusive behavior?

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free

of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should
recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”).

Yes it can and then when they are corrected, if they continue, the below
kicks in.

* Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be

tolerated.

Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.

Yes but as mentioned earlier, first comes the CoC, then comes the
enforcement policy.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

Best,

David

--
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

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.

Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler
Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01
To: Josh Drake
Cc: Psql_General (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers.

* Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just expressing an opposing view!”).

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”).

* Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.

Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.

Best,

David

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

On 24 January 2016 at 14:53, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
<farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:

I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.

Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

Sure, why not? Forget that at least 50% (I'm being generous) of the
contributors to the thread disagree, we'll just do what you want
because you're jumping on every thread and forcing your opinion on the
list.

We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that
you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come
about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to
pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it
actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or
you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter
what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or
against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities
and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC.

I'm sure that'll be fine, yes?

Geoff

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

I don't agree that this should be about anything more than protecting the
commons.

I also do not want to see the PostgreSQL community pushed into taking
stands on political causes because of people arguing about what viewpoints
are more privileged than others.

I think the CoC is good as it stands.

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 3:53 PM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <
farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:

I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.

Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:
pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler
Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01
To: Josh Drake
Cc: Psql_General (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,

productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to
contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative
space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as
mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the
community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers.

* Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just
expressing an opposing view!”).

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should
recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”).

* Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be

tolerated.

Link to enforcement policy will of course be required.

Best,

David

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:

I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add
these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01
We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made
outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor
to abusers. [...]

As I wrote previously, not "everybody" is happy with that proposal.
My opinions and what I do outside the Postgresql community is not
and should not be an issue for the Postgresql community to act on
within the Postgresql community.

The result of failing to provide this basic protection for individual
free speech can be seen in the McCarthyism in the 1950's in the US [*]
With all the open source projects that need help, it would be hard for
me to want to help ones that promote a return to that kind of vicious
and harmful philosophy, no matter which end of the political spectrum
it occurs at.

[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:52 PM, S McGraw <smcg4191@mtneva.com> wrote:

On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:

I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add
these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:

pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler Sent:
24 January 2016 00:01

We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made
outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor
to abusers. [...]

As I wrote previously, not "everybody" is happy with that proposal.
My opinions and what I do outside the Postgresql community is not
and should not be an issue for the Postgresql community to act on
within the Postgresql community.

The result of failing to provide this basic protection for individual
free speech can be seen in the McCarthyism in the 1950's in the US [*]
With all the open source projects that need help, it would be hard for
me to want to help ones that promote a return to that kind of vicious
and harmful philosophy, no matter which end of the political spectrum
it occurs at.

[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:

* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any political
question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we support). We
expect communication in community fora to respect this need. The community
is neither competent nor interested in resolving more general social or
political questions.

In my view this establishes inclusiveness and pluralism by simply saying we
aren't interested in the rest of the question.

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

On 01/24/2016 02:34 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made
outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe
harbor to abusers.

The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let
whatever space they are in and the requirements of that space
dictate the response to their behaviour.

Additionally, "if you are harassed, maybe you should consult a lawyer"
is not a bad option.

I think that would be covered under support documents. Certainly we
could have a page that has lots of discussion points about things people
can do under these circumstances, but that doesn't belong in the CoC proper.

This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I
was just expressing an opposing view!”).

Can you provide an example of said behaviour that does not also
violate the below?

What is abusive? And doesn't any formulation provide cover for arguably
abusive behavior?

It is rather impossible to be abusive and have it not be a personal
attack or use of disparaging words.

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions
are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

Sincerely,

JD

--
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 01/24/2016 07:36 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that
you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come
about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to
pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it
actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or
you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter
what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or
against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities
and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC.

I'm sure that'll be fine, yes?

Enough.

Sarcasm is not productive.

This is a difficult topic. A good portion of this community doesn't want
a CoC at all. A good portion are upset with me for even bringing it up.
This is something that I brought up in protest because I believe that it
is crucial to the growth of this community. Remember that I don't want
one either but sometimes we do things we don't want to do. We still do
them in a professional and productive way because that is who we are.

If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going
to be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.

Do not turn our community into a SJW fight. We are better than that.

Sincerely,

JD

--
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 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:

* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this
need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
more general social or political questions.

That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is
when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That
position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community
doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian
conference to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all
people to feel welcome.

Sincerely,

JD

--
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 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

Sarcasm is not productive.

Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the
first paragraph, but not the second :p

The most significant problem I see with the Contributor Covenant
(other than my personal feeling that Postgres shouldn't have anything
to do members' lives outside the community, but that's just my
opinion) is the potential for legal wranglings that would ensue. Just
being in a position to say "we know what legal problems there are",
let alone being able to say "we know that we are covered against any
potential legal issues" would be prohibitively expensive.

If someone's prepared to put themselves in a position to overcome that
issue then it's just an argument over points of view, really.

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 24 January 2016 at 17:34, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when
-core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That position
was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community doesn't
care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian conference to
have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all people to feel
welcome.

Apart from those people who think that topless dancers are fine? But
who cares about them, cos they're just unreconstructed bigots, right?

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 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to
be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.

And as for being not helpful, I was being helpful and my helpful and
reasoned points were ignored because they simply didn't want to hear
them. My current attitude is a direct consequence of theirs.

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 01/24/2016 09:39 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

Sarcasm is not productive.

Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the
first paragraph, but not the second :p

The most significant problem I see with the Contributor Covenant
(other than my personal feeling that Postgres shouldn't have anything
to do members' lives outside the community, but that's just my
opinion) is the potential for legal wranglings that would ensue. Just
being in a position to say "we know what legal problems there are",
let alone being able to say "we know that we are covered against any
potential legal issues" would be prohibitively expensive.

This thread is not about the Contributor Covenant. This thread is about
working the CoC that this community is already progressing through. It
is already clear that primary contributors in this community do not want
something as politically charged as the Contributor Covenant.

At its core, PostgreSQL is a practical community, not a political one.
That is why the CoC we are working on is practical, succinct and to the
point.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
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 01/24/2016 09:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to
be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.

And as for being not helpful, I was being helpful and my helpful and
reasoned points were ignored because they simply didn't want to hear
them. My current attitude is a direct consequence of theirs.

I would ask that you not make this about yourself. We are here to
discuss the CoC. If you don't have productive statements to be made
specifically about this text, please move on.

== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==

This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,
productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to
contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative
space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as
mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

* Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.

* Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be
tolerated.

--
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

Josh,

Two changes I would like to the Coc as it stands:

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

Change the word "must" to "try to".
You yourself said some people have called you sexist and against obese people because of some statements you made.
They would say you did not ensure your language was free of personal attacks. Only bystanders can judge.

On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:

* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this
need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
more general social or political questions.

That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference.
That position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian conference to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all people to feel welcome.

Sincerely,

JD

I would add another bullet:

* Participants try to look out for the well-being of each other.
If a participant feels strongly that someone is being unfairly treated or ignored,
then they are encouraged to speak up about it.

The reason for this last bullet is like in the example you said - if a woman says having topless dancers is wrong, then she could be viewed as a humorless feminist.
If a man says it, it carries more weight. So in this case, a man is better able to defend the concerns of a woman.

Similarly if I see a man being harassed by a woman, my voice as a woman carries more weight than a guy making the same exact statement
or trying to defend himself.

Thanks,
Regina

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:

On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:

* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this
need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
more general social or political questions.

That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when
-core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That
position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community
doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian
conference to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all
people to feel welcome.

I don't know that this is really a political resolution though (aside from
being the politics of community governance). I don't see the PostgreSQL
core committee taking a position on the question of topless dancing, just
that it would be inappropriate for some participants and therefore
unwelcome. And that is position is reasonable.

So trying a slightly better wording:

* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this
need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving
more general social or political questions. Nonetheless the core team
does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where all people, regardless
of background feel generally welcome.

I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too.

Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make
a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic. Would that be
off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization?

The point then is just to note that PostgreSQL is not a political community
and has no intention of becoming one, but that one aspect here is to keep
the peace so to speak.

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

On 01/24/2016 12:28 PM, Chris Travers wrote:

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake
<jd@commandprompt.com <mailto:jd@commandprompt.com>> wrote: On
01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:

* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which
we support). We expect communication in community fora to respect
this need. The community is neither competent nor interested in
resolving more general social or political questions.

That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is
when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference.
That position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this
community doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the
Russian conference to have those dancers. It was done so because
-core wants all people to feel welcome.

I don't know that this is really a political resolution though (aside
from being the politics of community governance). I don't see the
PostgreSQL core committee taking a position on the question of
topless dancing, just that it would be inappropriate for some
participants and therefore unwelcome. And that is position is
reasonable.

So trying a slightly better wording:

* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which
we support). We expect communication in community fora to respect
this need. The community is neither competent nor interested in
resolving more general social or political questions. Nonetheless
the core team does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where
all people, regardless of background feel generally welcome.

I too strongly think the CoC needs something like this. But two nits:

1) I don't understand what you mean by

...aside from its usage in the public sector (which we support)

2) I don't think "neither competent nor interested" sounds right.
a) Nobody is "competent" in the sense of an engineering problem.
These issues are "solved" by one side gathering sufficient
political support to impose their solution on the other
(sometimes for better, sometimes for worse).
b) While the "community as some sort of abstract entity may not be
"interested", many members of that community certainly are...
perhaps sometimes to the detriment of the community's primary
purpose.

Perhaps replacing

The community is neither competent nor interested in
resolving more general social or political questions.

with something like

Such general social or political questions are often highly
divisive particularly given the diverse membership we strive
to attract.

would be better?

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general