On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24 January 2016 at 00:15, Steve Litt <slitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 +0000
> Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
>> to the same level of protection.
>
> The preceding two sentences form a distinction that will need some
> elaboration.
I'm not quite sure how. Maybe English isn't your first language?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/entitle
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/need
> Come on, the preceding is contrived to the point of being silly. You
> know exactly what I mean.
No, it absolutely isn't. Your point is "here is a group of people who
have no right to an opinion because XYZ". My point is that by
generalising to the group you are ignoring the individuals within it.
With due respect to everyone in this conversation, the emphasis should not be in protecting people. It should be in protecting the project as a common endeavor. Protecting individuals from certain kinds of behavior is necessary in accomplishing that. But it isn't the primary goal and should not be.
I also think it is important to set that expectation early on. That this is about the needs of the community.
I am concerned that there is a drive to jump on a particular cultural bandwagon here which may *appear* to be inclusive but is in fact very exclusionary and would push the project into a very distinctly political direction internationally.
Geoff
--
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.
