On 01/24/2016 11:28 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example
is when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian
conference. That position was taken without consideration that at a
lot of this community doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the
right for the Russian conference to have those dancers. It was done
so because -core wants all people to feel welcome.
I don't know that this is really a political resolution though (aside
from being the politics of community governance). I don't see the
PostgreSQL core committee taking a position on the question of topless
dancing, just that it would be inappropriate for some participants and
therefore unwelcome. And that is position is reasonable.
It is political in the sense of what is considered acceptable. A better
term than I used is probably controversial. The reality is, a lot of
society doesn't have a problem with topless dancers, nudity or porn.
There are some that think that it manipulates and abuses women. There
are others that think they have a right to an opinion on what these
women chose to do. There are some who are trying to do the right thing
but don't know quite how to go about it. Every one of them think they
are right.
So trying a slightly better wording:
* 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. Nonetheless the core
team does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where all
people, regardless of background feel generally welcome.
Your wording boils down to:
* The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving more
general social or political questions.
But in fact, we are. We have influence and the ability to exert that
influence (again -core and the Russian dancers). Further we are people
and people have opinions.
They key here is to accept that and enforce that acceptance on those
what won't. That is why the CoC exists.
I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too.
Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to
make a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic. Would
that be off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an
organization?
No. Nor does the CoC state that it would be.
The point then is just to note that PostgreSQL is not a political
community and has no intention of becoming one, but that one aspect here
is to keep the peace so to speak.
Good. I believe this point is solved quite clearly here:
* The community is not interested in resolving more general social or
political questions.
“Don't use a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent word will do.” Mark Twain.
I believe the existing CoC solves that without the added wording above
but I am certainly willing to listen if others disagree. Consider that
if anyone started spouting political views (which rarely happens within
this community anyway) that the existing community rules (regardless of
CoC) would apply. It would become off-topic.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
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
