Code of Conduct plan
Community members:
A number of people have contacted the Core Team about taking action
regarding a Code of Conduct (CoC) for the project. After some
discussion, the plan we have come up with is below.
**Please do not reply-all to this email, as we do not wish to generate
additional list traffic regarding CoCs**
1. The Core Team will appoint an exploration committee which will look
at various proposals (including the one drafted on pgsql-general) for
CoCs and discuss them. This committee will include both major community
members and less central folks who have hands-on experience with CoCs
and community management issues. If you know of PostgreSQL community
members who have relevant experience, please nominate them by emailing
the core team: pgsql-core@postgresql.org.
2. We will also hire a professional consultant to advise the committee
on CoC development, adoption, training, and enforcement. Again, if
community members have a consultant to recommend, please email the core
team.
3. This committee will post a draft CoC or possibly a selection of draft
CoCs by or before late April for community comment. Likely the
committee will be publishing drafts more frequently, but that will be up
to them to work out.
4. At the pgCon Community Unconference, and again at pgconf.EU, we will
have sessions where people can discuss and provide feedback about
proposed (or adopted) CoCs. Possibly we will have CoC-related trainings
as well.
5. Once a draft is agreed upon, it will be circulated to our various
sub-communities for comment.
6. A "final" CoC will be endorsed by the committee and the Core Team
shortly after pgConf.EU, unless there is sufficently strong consensus to
adopt one before then.
Yes, we realize this is a long timeline. The PostgreSQL Project has
never been about implementing things in a hurry; our practice has always
been to take all of the time required to develop the right feature the
right way. Adopting a CoC is no different; if anything, we need to take
*more* time in order to get input from community members who do not
speak up frequently or assertively.
In the meantime, our policy remains: if you have experienced harassment
or feel that you are being treated unfairly by other project members,
email the Core Team and we will investigate your complaint and take
appropriate action.
Also, we want to thank Josh Drake for raising the CoC issue and getting
it off the TODO list and into process, and devising an initial "seed"
CoC. Such things are all too easy to keep postponing.
Again, Please DO NOT comment on this plan on-list; one of the pieces of
feedback we have received loud and clear is that many community members
are unhappy with the amount of list traffic devoted to the subject of
CoCs. As such, if you have comments on the plan above, please email the
core team instead of replying on-list, or wait for the committee and
address comments to them.
--Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Core Team
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
The Code of Conducts basically amount to a "code of wrongthink". This can
be best described when some of their advocates, like for example in the
Node project make respositories called "mansplain" and "misandry", or when
speakers at OSCON are caught with mugs reading "male tears" and using the
"#killallmen" hashtag, and are ironically ignored when you report these
matters whatsoever.
More importantly many in the industry have taken af "extend, embrace,
extinguish" mentality to open source, projects that have been initially
open source have become monetized and controlled by organizations, which
have no intention of allowing open governance or control over the code
base, and use these sort of "code of conducts" to label dissenting opinions
as "toxic" or heretical.
I'd also like to mention that blacklisting is generally considered illegal,
and I consider the application of sanctioned discrimination, even
politically correct forms of it as illegal as well.
"The *Hollywood blacklist*—as the broader *entertainment industry blacklist* is
generally known—was the practice of denying employment to screenwriters,
actors, directors, musicians, and other American entertainment
professionals during the mid-20th century because of their suspected
Communist sympathy or membership in the Communist Party."
"John Henry Faulk won his lawsuit in 1962. With this court decision, the
private blacklisters and those who used them were put on notice that they
were legally liable <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_liability> for the
professional and financial damage they caused. This helped to bring an end
to publications such as *Counterattack"*
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
1. The Core Team will appoint an exploration committee which will look
at various proposals (including the one drafted on pgsql-general) for
CoCs and discuss them.
To follow up on this ...
The Core Team are pleased to announce that Stacey Haysler has accepted
our invitation to chair the exploratory committee on a Postgres Code of
Conduct. Stacey is very well qualified to do this, since she is a well
known member of the Postgres community and has had an extended career in
human resources, including creation and implementation of
anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.
Stacey will be reaching out to potential committee members over the next
few days or weeks. Once the committee is assembled, they will devise
some way (possibly a new mailing list, though I don't want to pre-judge
it) for the wider community to have input into the discussions.
In the meantime, we ask that people continue to refrain from flooding
pgsql-general or other existing PG lists with CoC-related threads.
There will be a time and a place for those discussions, but not yet.
If you have interest or concerns about this process, you can contact
Stacey at shayslerpgx@gmail.com or the Core Team at
pgsql-core@postgresql.org.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy
Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
to draft a CoC [1]/messages/by-id/56A8516B.8000105@agliodbs.com. That process has taken far longer than expected,
but the committee has not been idle. They worked through many comments
and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
of the core team. This final(?) draft can be found at
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
coc@postgresql.org.
The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
but shortly.
Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
July 1 2018.
regards, tom lane
Is there some archive of the discussion that brought on this effort and the
considerations of the committee itself? I wish I had seen the earlier
announcements in 2016 as I would have definitely participated.
Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents within
the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the first
place? I'm curious about the specific impetus that brought about
Postgresql's efforts to consider one. I've read the other comments in the
general list but I'm more interested in the specifics motivations and
efforts by the CoC committee.
thanks,
-- Ben Scherrey
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Show quoted text
Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
to draft a CoC [1]. That process has taken far longer than expected,
but the committee has not been idle. They worked through many comments
and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
of the core team. This final(?) draft can be found athttps://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
coc@postgresql.org.The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
but shortly.Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
July 1 2018.regards, tom lane
On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
to draft a CoC [1]. That process has taken far longer than expected,
but the committee has not been idle. They worked through many comments
and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
of the core team. This final(?) draft can be found athttps://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
coc@postgresql.org.The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
but shortly.Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
July 1 2018.
My comments:
1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of problem.
Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.
2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into
disrepute, ..."
This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen outside
the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be handled
where they occur not here.
3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered
offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such
conduct. "
Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of people
these days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with someone to
have it called offensive. This section should be removed as proscribed
behavior is called out in detail in the paragraphs above it.
regards, tom lane
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
Is there some archive of the discussion that brought on this effort and the
considerations of the committee itself? I wish I had seen the earlier
announcements in 2016 as I would have definitely participated.
If you poke around in our mailing list archives for early 2016 (Jan/Feb),
you'll find a number of threads about it. Mostly on the -general list,
IIRC.
Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents within
the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the first
place?
I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.
In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
length in 2016. It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
the community wants a CoC. I don't think any useful purpose will be
served by re-litigating that point.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
Code of Conduct for the Postgres community...We are now asking for a final round of community comments...
I really like that this was included: "Any allegations that prove not to be substantiated...will be
viewed as a serious community offense and a violation of this Code of Conduct."
Good attempt to prevent the CoC being used as vindictive weaponry.
I also like that you kept is short.
-- B
On 06/03/2018 02:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
Is there some archive of the discussion that brought on this effort and the
considerations of the committee itself? I wish I had seen the earlier
announcements in 2016 as I would have definitely participated.If you poke around in our mailing list archives for early 2016 (Jan/Feb),
you'll find a number of threads about it. Mostly on the -general list,
IIRC.Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents within
the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the first
place?I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
length in 2016. It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
the community wants a CoC. I don't think any useful purpose will be
Since there was never a community vote taken I am not sure how it was
determined there was a majority in favor. From what I remember of the
online discussion the opinion was evenly split on the need for a CoC.
served by re-litigating that point.
regards, tom lane
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On 06/03/2018 04:54 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
Code of Conduct for the Postgres community...We are now asking for a final round of community comments...
I really like that this was included: "Any allegations that prove not to
be substantiated...will be viewed as a serious community offense and a
violation of this Code of Conduct."Good attempt to prevent the CoC being used as vindictive weaponry.
But a futile attempt: "A lie can travel half way around the world while the
truth is putting on its shoes."
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
On 04/06/18 07:32, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
to draft a CoC [1]. That process has taken far longer than expected,
but the committee has not been idle. They worked through many comments
and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
of the core team. This final(?) draft can be found athttps://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
coc@postgresql.org.The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced
separately,
but shortly.Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a
result
of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
July 1 2018.My comments:
1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of
problem. Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project
into disrepute, ..."
This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen
outside the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be
handled where they occur not here.3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered
offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such
conduct. "
Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of people
these days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with someone to
have it called offensive. This section should be removed as proscribed
behavior is called out in detail in the paragraphs above it.
I might possibly say that "I'm the master in this area" when talking to
someone on a technical subject. In the sense that I'm better at that
particular skill, but some hypersensitive American could get their
knickers in a twist (notice, that in this context, no gender is implied
-- also in using that that expression "get their knickers in a twist"
could offend some snowflake) claiming that I'm suggesting that whoever
I'm talking to is my slave! I heard of an American university that
doesn't want people to use the term master, like in an MSc, because of
the history of slavery.
I've used the expressions "sacrifice a willing virgin" and "offering my
first born to the gods" as ways to ensure success of resolving a
technical issue. The people I say that to, know what I mean -- and they
implicitly know that I'm not seriously suggesting such conduct. Yet, if
I wrote that publicly, it is conceivable that someone might object!
There are a lot of words and phrases that are okay in some cultures, but
may be offensive in others -- even within the ame country.
Consider a past advertising campaign in Australia to sell government
Bonds. They used two very common hand gestures that are very
Australian. Bond sales dropped. On investigation, they found the bonds
were mainly bought by old Greek people, who found the gestures obscene.
The gestures? Thumbs up, and the okay gesture formed by touching the
thumb with the next finger -- nothing sexually suggestive to most
Australians, but traditional Greeks found them offensive.
You should look at the hoohaa over what Linus Torvalds says. I've read
several of his posts and seen videos were he has been less than polite.
But I know when he is coming from. If Linus was rude to me, I would be
chuffed, because than I'd know I was good enough for him to reply to me,
but that either I could have done better or that Linus was wrong. For
example see the email exchange with the infamous Sarah Sharp
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/407. At the 2015 Australian Linux
Conference, I watched as Sarah harangued Linus for over twenty minutes,
Linus kept calm and polite throughout.
So common words and phrases could be offensive to some people. Sometimes
people just need to let of stream.
You could end up with people being excessively polite to show their
displeasure. Come across the expression "icely polite" -- it was a way
of showing contempt while denying the victim any excuse for a deadly
duel! Which would lead to the issue that people wouldn't always know if
the politeness was real, or if it was intended to show disdain.
Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!
Cheers,
Gavin
Show quoted text
regards, tom lane
On Jun 3, 2018, at 16:08 , Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!
+1 this is a distraction.
Some people are not paying attention and are sending code-of-conduct comments to
all lists, not just pgsql-general, but -hackers and -advocacy too.
I've seen 3 of these so far today.
This is a reminder to please send the comments to pgsql-general only.
-- Darren Duncan
Show quoted text
On 2018-06-03 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
coc@postgresql.org.
On Jun 3, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
On 04/06/18 07:32, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
to draft a CoC [1]. That process has taken far longer than expected,
but the committee has not been idle. They worked through many comments
and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
of the core team. This final(?) draft can be found athttps://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
coc@postgresql.org.The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
but shortly.Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
July 1 2018.My comments:
1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of problem. Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.
2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into disrepute, ..."
This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen outside the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be handled where they occur not here.3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such conduct. "
Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of people these days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with someone to have it called offensive. This section should be removed as proscribed behavior is called out in detail in the paragraphs above it.
[truncated]
Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!
I believe the main goal of the CoC is the opposite: it’s to ensure that
people do feel welcome to participate in the PostgreSQL community and
that if they are unfortunately subject to an incident that they have a safe
means of reporting it versus codifying what is “correct."
There is also a committee around the CoC and why there will be multiple
individuals on the committee, so that way any complaints can be fairly
researched, discussed, and resolved. There are also several checks and
balances with the enforcement of the CoC that should help ensure that any
complaints are handled as fairly as possible.
Anyway, a big +1 to the effort of everyone who worked on the CoC for
the past several years. From feedback in other forums through the years,
I know it does make a difference to have a code of conduct in terms of
helping people to feel more welcome and knowing that there is an
avenue for them to voice feedback in the case of an unfortunate incident.
Jonathan
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:47:58 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:
Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents within
the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the first
place?I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.
Unfortunately, conduct codes generally aren't worth the paper they are
written on. People who are inclined to behave badly towards others in
the 1st place will do so regardless of any code or any consequences of
violating the code.
The only thing a conduct code really accomplishes is to make some
subset of the signers feel good about themselves. Actions are more
important than words.
YMMV.
In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
length in 2016. It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
the community wants a CoC. I don't think any useful purpose will be
served by re-litigating that point.regards, tom lane
I remember that thread, but I don't remember any vote being taken. And
the participants in the thread were self-selected for interest in the
topic, so any consensus there is not necessarily reflective of the
community at large.
I am completely in favor of civil discourse and behavior, but I am not
in favor of unenforcible red tape.
Just my 2 cents.
George
On Sunday, June 3, 2018, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:47:58 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents
within
the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in thefirst
place?
I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.Unfortunately, conduct codes generally aren't worth the paper they are
written on. People who are inclined to behave badly towards others in
the 1st place will do so regardless of any code or any consequences of
violating the code.
I would say that such a generalization is itself of dubious value.
The only thing a conduct code really accomplishes is to make some
subset of the signers feel good about themselves. Actions are more
important than words.
It communicates that this community has a policing force, which itself is
non-obvious and thus worth communicating, and provides that force
guidelines for action.
In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
length in 2016. It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
the community wants a CoC. I don't think any useful purpose will be
served by re-litigating that point.regards, tom lane
I remember that thread, but I don't remember any vote being taken. And
the participants in the thread were self-selected for interest in the
topic, so any consensus there is not necessarily reflective of the
community at large.
That's pretty much par for the public dynamic of this community. And, as
noted above, such a policy doesn't need the community at-large's approval:
it's a document that constrains those that wrote it.
I am completely in favor of civil discourse and behavior, but I am not
in favor of unenforcible red tape.
The core team does have enforcement tools at its disposal. They are at
least being open about the circumstances and extents under which they would
leverage those tools.
David J.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
Is there some archive of the discussion that brought on this effort and
the
considerations of the committee itself? I wish I had seen the earlier
announcements in 2016 as I would have definitely participated.If you poke around in our mailing list archives for early 2016 (Jan/Feb),
you'll find a number of threads about it. Mostly on the -general list,
IIRC.
I did go back and read through the 2016 content rather thoroughly. But
where has all the discussion been going on for the last two years? Am I to
understand that this effort has been going on in an entirely undocumented
manner? I find that difficult to fathom such a thing happening in this
community so I'm sure my understanding is mistaken. Where can we see the
details of what was considered and what drove the committee to its
apparently final proposal?
Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents within
the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in thefirst
place?
I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
length in 2016. It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
the community wants a CoC. I don't think any useful purpose will be
served by re-litigating that point.
I also don't want to re-litigate anything and I do trust that core members
and people involved with the effort are acting in good faith for their
efforts. I'd just like to see what that consisted of so that I can consider
it from a fully informed basis and not waste anyone else's time. I've cc'd
Stacey in hopes that perhaps this can be clarified soon. I would like to
review what was considered before I finalize any opinion about what's been
proposed.
thanx & best regards,
-- Ben Scherrey
On 06/03/2018 09:21 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Sunday, June 3, 2018, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net
<mailto:gneuner2@comcast.net>> wrote:
That's pretty much par for the public dynamic of this community. And,
as noted above, such a policy doesn't need the community at-large's
approval: it's a document that constrains those that wrote it.
If that is the case then it is of no real use as only a handful of
people wrote it. Otherwise could you explain what you mean?
I am completely in favor of civil discourse and behavior, but I am not
in favor of unenforcible red tape.The core team does have enforcement tools at its disposal. They are at
least being open about the circumstances and extents under which they
would leverage those tools.David J.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
wrote:
On 06/03/2018 09:21 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
That's pretty much par for the public dynamic of this community. And, as
noted above, such a policy doesn't need the community at-large's approval:
it's a document that constrains those that wrote it.If that is the case then it is of no real use as only a handful of people
wrote it. Otherwise could you explain what you mean?
The core committee can, if they so choose, e.g., remove someones login
from postgresql.org, period. They don't *need* a published code of conduct
to take action in situations they deem to violate whatever code the members
collectively hold to. But making it public and publishing a corresponding
dispute resolution process brings a level of openness and formality to the
process that benefits the community as a whole. While input from those the
Core Team serves is valuable at the end of the day they are a benign
dictatorial committee when it comes to official PGDG policy and actions and
this document is their group think made manifest for others to learn about
and provide feedback as to how they would wish for the Core Team to behave.
And, since the Core Team is delegating the role of community policing to
others, a document detailing that is needed for those other's benefit if
nothing else.
David J.
Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
I did go back and read through the 2016 content rather thoroughly. But
where has all the discussion been going on for the last two years?
It's been private, mostly either (a) the exploration committee responding
to comments that were received at PGCon 2016 [1]https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Coc_qa_pgcon2016 or privately, or (b) the
core team arguing among ourselves whether we were prepared to support the
draft yet. I'm embarrassed to admit that a whole lot of the delay has
been due to (b). Core did finally resolve our differences in in-person
meetings at PGCon 2018, which is why you're seeing this now rather than
some other time.
Anyway, the core discussions certainly aren't going to be made public,
and I doubt that Stacey has any intention of publishing the exploration
committee's private mail either. If you compare the current draft to
what was available in 2016, I don't think you'll find any differences
that are so substantive as to require public defense. We tried to make
the wording simpler and less intimidating, but that's about it.
regards, tom lane
