Jim, > That has nothing to do with the Code of Conduct, though. The community accepting Tom saying "no" to Feature X is vastly different than the community not calling Tom out for being mean. > The CoC is about the later situation and not the prior; and the community should call Tom out. (I'm sure you're a great person, Tom, sorry you're the example being used here.) Let me reiterate that YES it does. The reason is that this is a Contributor Code of Conduct, so covers whether and how you accept a piece of code. In certain gang of 10 that has not contributed anything to our project can argue that you took person X over person Y's implementation because person Y is black and you are racist. If everyone is equal -- how are you going to fight that? In that case, you would judge the opinion of someone who has worked more with the PostgreSQL code base than some random person off the street. I've seen this happen with that Contributor Code of Conduct http://contributor-covenant.org/ (It's very ugly when it happens). > Now the whole n-or-b thing gets into obvious not helpful dialogue > which is not helpful. I'm sure anyone would agree that if Tom called > me a nigger, it's not helpful to our communication, and you should > therefore tell him to shut-up regardless who he is. > So then why call him more valued? It doesn't matter in this context. Why even bring it up. On technical matters, someone closer to the issue is often a better arbiter of the evidence, but in matters of interpersonal interactions, no one should be held above another person. Tom was just an example. Yes someone closer to the problem would be better and Tom of course would delegate. My point is people in our community are more important to us than strangers. Let's say you have 1000 people come and attack you off the street(this is how those SJW's work BTW and why they are so big on that line "It's your responsibility to oust your project maintainers"). If you consider their opinions equal to those who have put sweat into the project, they will crush you. A Coc is not only to make new-comers feel welcome, but to protect our long-estabilished project members from marauders. >> While we do consider people's feelings, we weigh that against the >> effort of changing long understood terminology and the psychological >> trauma such changes would cause for the large majority of people who >> are not as sensitive to the usage. >> >> What psychological trauma? From changing terms? Are you crazy? (See >> for >> that you'd like to the CoC to tell me why that wasn't an appropriate >> way to express my disbelief that someone would equate a change of term >> to psychological trauma. >> >> Think about if all your life when you've been talking about >> replication you've been using master/slave, and someone says from now >> on, It's leader/follower. >> >> So now in every conference you go to you need to catch yourself when >> you are saying Master/Slave oops I meant to say Leader / Follower. >> >> To me that's psychological trauma. It's the same psychological trauma >> I had to face being born a left-handed and being forced to write with >> my right-hand. > But it's still not trauma, where is the trauma? Something like Master/Slave to Primary/Replica (which IMHO is a more descriptive term > anyway) would be a long-term, gradual change. In all honesty no one will care when you slip up because they'll understand it's a change in progress. I just don't see the trauma. > Jim Okay trauma was a bit too dramatic. How about this: While we do consider people's feelings, we weigh that against the Time and effort of changing long understood terminology that a large majority of people are used to. Since it's less costly to change new terms, we are more likely to accept changes to newer terminology than changes to long established industry terminology. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
