On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:52 PM, S McGraw <smcg4191@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:
> I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add
> these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?
>
>> From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01
>> We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made
>> outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor
>> to abusers. [...]
As I wrote previously, not "everybody" is happy with that proposal.
My opinions and what I do outside the Postgresql community is not
and should not be an issue for the Postgresql community to act on
within the Postgresql community.
The result of failing to provide this basic protection for individual
free speech can be seen in the McCarthyism in the 1950's in the US [*]
With all the open source projects that need help, it would be hard for
me to want to help ones that promote a return to that kind of vicious
and harmful philosophy, no matter which end of the political spectrum
it occurs at.
[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:
* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving more general social or political questions.
In my view this establishes inclusiveness and pluralism by simply saying we aren't interested in the rest of the question.
--
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.
