On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:25 AM, David E. Wheeler <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Fellow PostgreSQLers,
I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the level of many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this community and others, who have. If those people are not speaking up here, I suspect it’s because they don’t expect to be heard. A bunch of white guys who run the project have decided what it’s gonna be, and mostly cut things out since these threads started.
I am married to someone from a very different culture and have now lived and worked in three very different cultures and continents. One problem I have seen is that once one starts making these distinction "white guys" then the rhetorical framework is complex enough it turns to benefit the same powers it is supposed to restrict.
But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered what sorts of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to word them so as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to appropriately address issues when they inevitably arise, so that people continue to feel safe.
So I’d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I propose that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have already put into this, and simply:
* Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor Covenant, unmodified.
http://contributor-covenant.org
Does the phrase "solution in search of a problem" come to mind?
* Put this document in the root directory of the project as CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It should also be listed on the main web site and referenced from appropriate places (such as the mail lists pages).
* Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a separate document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The reporting address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links to a number of existing guides we ought to crib from.
The problem isn't as I understand it an enforcement problem. It is the fact that in a genuinely diverse group of people, there are going to be major differences in perspective and it is very easy to find something to be offended at. If the goal is a frankly Western-exclusive view of diversity which includes some perspectives but is hostile to other perspectives then it is entirely self-defeating.
As I have mentioned before people in many countries may (legitimately!) see folks pushing GLBT rights as an effort to corrode the traditional multi-generation family structures which both care for the elderly and provide business continuity in a family business (i.e. self-employment, small business, unincorporated, nonindustrial) economy. And therefore we white guys can then justify our racist paternalism using our perception of their homophobia (without even trying to understand where they are coming from!).... My point here isn't on the wisdom of policies but on the nature of discourse and the point that the quest to appear diverse to some interests requires squashing diversity in other dimensions (particularly where ideology and culture come together).
As I have mentioned before people in many countries may (legitimately!) see folks pushing GLBT rights as an effort to corrode the traditional multi-generation family structures which both care for the elderly and provide business continuity in a family business (i.e. self-employment, small business, unincorporated, nonindustrial) economy. And therefore we white guys can then justify our racist paternalism using our perception of their homophobia (without even trying to understand where they are coming from!).... My point here isn't on the wisdom of policies but on the nature of discourse and the point that the quest to appear diverse to some interests requires squashing diversity in other dimensions (particularly where ideology and culture come together).
Because I see things from multiple cultural perspectives let me give a hypothetical that I think shows how these things conflict. I might be getting quoted sources slightly wrong. My point here is to highlight differences in perspective and how people may find this exclusionary.
Suppose someone in the community (we will call this Person A) adds an email signature which says:
"Marriage is an institution for the benefit of the spouses, not for the purposes of binding parents to their children." -- Ted Olsen arguing for same-sex marraige.
Suppose person B takes offense, and changes the email signature to read:
"If mutual consent makes a sexual act moral, whether within marriage or without, and, by parity of reasoning, even between members of the same sex, the whole basis of sexual morality is gone and nothing but misery and defect awaits the youth of the country..." -- Mohandas Gandhi
"If mutual consent makes a sexual act moral, whether within marriage or without, and, by parity of reasoning, even between members of the same sex, the whole basis of sexual morality is gone and nothing but misery and defect awaits the youth of the country..." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Person A appeals to the core community saying that person B's signature is hostile to gays and lesbians (and it is). Person B responds that person A's signature is deeply culturally insensitive and undermines any hope of cultural diversity on the list (and it does). Person A points out that they consider India a horrible abuser of gay rights, and person B points out that person A just doesn't even try to understand the Indian culture enough to say anything constructive.
Now, if it is only these two people, then a reasonable answer is to say to them "Grow up and embrace diversity of viewpoint. It's just an email signature for crying out loud."
But suppose the feud continues and other people are uncomfortable as well? Then I hope the answer would be "our community is neither competent nor interested in resolving this argument, but it is making people uncomfortable. If you want to argue about it, take it off list. Otherwise we consider both email signatures to be disruptive."
Surely part of the point of this exercise is to keep the community from being used as a weapon in a political argument, particularly over issues which are controversial globally.
Best,
David
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
