On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Updated.
Tl;dr;
* Removed excess wording
* Removed non-.org controlled spaces in first paragraph
* Added explicit discussion on explicit problem with last paragraph of Kevin's last version.
== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
This document is intended to provide community guidelines for
creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in
a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative way. It applies
to all "collaborative space", which is defined as community
communications channels (such as mailing lists, IRC, submitted
patches, commit comments, etc.).
* 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.
* Participants must avoid sustained disruption of the collaborative
space, or any pattern of behavior which could reasonably be
considered harassment.
=== END ===
I have serious problems with the below[1]. My main concern is this and I am going to use real people to
illustrate the issue:
* I am a left leaning realist with some libretarian leanings.
(I voted for Obama)
* Andrew D is a left leaning lefist
(He might vote for Sanders)
We are both high profile contributors and often have public discourse
on who is right or wrong. This is good. It is fun and we poke at
each other but we continue to respect each other.
However, there are people in this community that are far right
and far left. It is not the responsibility of .Org to determine
who is right or wrong there. Period.
Now, how does this apply (as an example)? There are very loud people in this community who are pro-gay marriage and they are unable to respect those who don't agree with the position. There are also those who are anti-gay marriage that do the same.
Since this is a global project with a truly global contribution team it actually gets worse than this because a lot of these issues are also lifestyle/economic system issues.
I figure in this discussion it is worth mentioning my perspective as someone who has now lived and worked on three continents. Not only can these political positions be *seen* as personal attacks, they can *be* personal attacks and often times we cannot see eachothers' social realities well enough to see that this is so.
I am going to use same-sex marriage to illustrate the issue because you brought it up and also because it is particularly clear, but one could see similar cases made regarding almost any major political controversial issue. I know a lot of people may see what I am writing below as politically offensive But my point here is about discourse and the merits of "no personal attacks" not about the policies of one country or another.
In Western, industrialized countries, for the most part, marriage is seen as an individual choice, whether one wants to have kids is seen as deeply individual, divorce is seen as a key aspect of liberating women from men, and men and women are seen as interchangeable.
In many other nations, marriage and children are seen as family duties, gender is closely tied to kinship and how capital and resources are divided, and married households are the seat of business and production rather than primarily economically about consumption. In these societies, things like easy divorce, abortion, and same-sex marriage have very different implications than in Western countries, and when you start talking across international (rather than merely national boundaries) it is hard for people to see where the others are coming from.
So it becomes very easy for an internationalized political stance to be seen as obviously hostile to someone's desired way of life, and frankly on many of these issues that goes both ways. Far worse, there is truth to that sense that internationalized political views are about depriving some way of life of legitimacy.
So it seems to me there are two options. The first is that political views have no place in the community. The second is that we expect people to treat eachother with respect regardless of political differences.
Personally I am in the second camp. I think the first is way over-protective. I think it is fine to shut out the crusaders. But we should recognize we are here to work together, come together, and do so regardless of our differences.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that. I am
100% certain the below will cause issues. We need different wording
if we are going to take that into account.
1. There is a distinction between words and actions taken within the
community and words and actions outside community communication
channels and events, but there is a gray area when using public
forums or social media where a person identifies as a member of
this community. Members of the community, especially those with a
high profile within the community, should be mindful of this and
avoid saying or doing anything in such venues which might create an
unwelcoming or hostile attitude toward the community.
--
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
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.
