> On 12 January 2016 at 09:25, Chris Travers <chris.travers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> One of the dangers of a CoC is that there are many potential issues >> which may or may not become real problems. I think if we try to be >> clear on all of them, then we risk creating codes instead of a general >> expectation of what we do expect. > Another consideration. > Last night I was thinking this issue over and then remembered that normally very reasonable persons (which I count myself among) can react quite poisonous when they are tired or stressed and people start pushing their buttons. > Those people probably would not be violating any CoC rules, but can cause someone else to do so. I should add you can be very hurtful without meaning to and without violating Coc rules. I'm sure Josh pushing his agenda was not intentional. But I really felt slighted by it. I think we are just going to have to accept that we are going to accidentally push each others buttons and that's okay and acceptable. If you don't know someone it's even easier to push their buttons. > Moreover, some people are exceptionally good at pushing all the wrong buttons, whether doing that willingly (out of malice) or not. > I'm a bit concerned that a CoC could give the malicious among those the ammunition they need to push buttons of their victims. Now of course, they could do that just as well without a CoC and I don't recall any instances of this problem on this list. Some people - study their victims carefully and figure out where their buttons are so they can push them and everyone can laugh. Considerate people study people in the community, figure out where their buttons are and try to avoid pushing them. It's more likely a malicious person is going to be someone who doesn't contribute much to the project. Thus my need to give contributors preferential treatment in ambiguous disputes. > To add to that, non-native speakers sometimes make mistakes that set it off. I remember an embarrassing case where I thought the word "gross" came from the German "Grosshaft", > which means quite the opposite (great, fabulous), and responded to a new idea on a list with a heartily meant "Gross!". And then you suddenly get angry mails from all over the place without understanding how that happened. Oops. It's not just non-native speakers, it's also American. I'm from New York and we tend to be very blunt and make jokes about everything. I'm half Nigerian and Nigerian's have more than their share of people with a sick sense of humor. Worse, my mother was a Medical Examiner (someone who does autopsies on murder victims) and so her humor was very death centered and I thus had this very sick humor that offended everyone I came across except other children Of medical examiners. Those kids would make jokes when they broke their arm - "Go away dad, I want someone who works on living people. I'm not dead yet." I won't even go into the jokes Medical Examiners tell to each other as I know few of you could see the humor in it. > Where I stand? I do not know whether a CoC for PG is a good idea or not, I can't decide. Anyway, in my case it's nothing more than an opinion anyway - my contributions are pretty much limited to offering help on this ML. The only reason I think we need a Coc is if we are concerned that a) Some people won't feel welcome if they don't see one b) Malicious people will spread rumors about our project for not having one , but if we have one, it has to protect us from them working within the rules, but pushing everyone's buttons. Thanks, Regina -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
