On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have received no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we can reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft.
This final draft incorporates all reasonable feedback I have received as well as rewriting it in a more conversational tone from Kevin Grittner's efforts.
== 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.).
* We are tolerant of people’s right to have 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.
* Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be tolerated.
I think this is well intentioned. All new laws should be subject to scrutiny as to how they will be applied and who will apply them.
There are difficulties here and I'm of the opinion it will have the opposite effect to its intention.
Person1: "I'd like you to stop doing that, it has bad effects"
(Lets assume that something bad has actually happened, enacted by Person 2)
Person2: "But everything I do is for the common good." - now anything that is said further violates point 3, straying near point 2.
Any attempt by Person1 to carry on the discussion until a reasonable outcome is achieved also violates point 4.
So even though Person2 has done something bad, Person1 is unable to discuss this without being sanctioned.
My observation is this isn't just a set of rules for behaviour, its a set of rules that controls people's ability to object, which is dangerous and would not be in the longer term interests of the community.
I suggest we remove point 3 entirely. Point 2 is sufficient to limit what is said.
Who will decide how this code is enacted? Rules imply rulers, so what is the constitution of the governing body?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
