On 01/22/2016 03:31 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if not an outright violation. But one can argue by another point (“tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds. So the demarcations of right and wrong are too easily subject to debate and further disagreement. Less ambiguity and contradiction is required.
You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the
reason.
Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
to see everyone protected. Any list, by its nature, is going to
make someone feel excluded and unprotected. In my view, the closer
it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.
Some of us do not need protection; we are already privileged members of the community. Therefor it’s important to spell out whom we aim to protect.
A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.
Sincerely,
JD
--
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
