Joshua D. Drake wrote: > == 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.). I think the words "collaborative space, which is defined as" can be omitted completely without loss of meaning; and since it's already agreed that this CoC only applies to online media; I'd also add the word "online" there. So "It applies to all online communication channels (such as ...)". > * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views. Reading the fine print of this phrase, I think it doesn't really convey what we want it to convey. "We are tolerant of people that have opposing views", perhaps, or "We recognize people's right to have opposing views". My points is that we are not tolerant of _the right_ -- that seems nonsensical to me. (Merriam Webster defines "tolerant" as "inclined to tolerate", and "to tolerate" as "2a. to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction") However the "we" also seems a bit wrong to me. Who is "we"? In concordance with the other points, I think this should start "Participants must be" or something along those lines. If not, the perhaps this point should be in the preamble instead of being a bulleted point. > * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free > of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. There have been no comments to this point on this thread. Congratulations :-) > * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants > should always assume good intentions. Karsten Hilbert proposed a different wording for this, +1 for that one. > * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a > pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be > tolerated. "which could be considered" is too open-ended. Since this point is the one and only that can cause enforcement to occur, it should be more strict as to what it is that will not be tolerated. I'd propose something like "is widely regarded as harassment" or something like that, so that it needs to be clear that there is a large group of people that considers the behavior unwanted rather than some minority. I also agree that what we don't tolerate is the behavior, not the person engaging in the behavior. Regarding mailing list misbehavior, for instance, I would think that this means that that person's post would be moderated (and each post would only be approved if it has no personal attacks, etc) instead of the person being completely banned from a list. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
