Greetings, * Joshua D. Drake (jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > I think this is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has no > business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full stop. This is exactly what this CoC points out- yes, PG.Org absolutely can and should consider the behavior of individuals as a whole, regardless of where, when it comes to deciding if it's appropriate for that individual to continue to be a member of this community. The CoC isn't about everyone in the world, nor is it trying to address the actions of individuals who are not members of this community, but it's definitely about more than just actions seen on these mailing lists. > On the other hand if you are (note: contributor, not community member which > is different) contributor to PostgreSQL, your actions speak about > PostgreSQL. So I am not sure what a good plan of action here would be. The line being drawn here isn't terribly clear and I don't know that it's really useful to try and draw a line. There's a limit to what PGDG is able to do from a technical perspective, but anything which is able to be done within PGDG should be done to distance the community and project, to the fullest extent possible, from inappropriate behavior. That could be someone causing problems on IRC or on the mailing lists or somewhere else, even if that individual isn't listed as a contributor or involved in the project in other ways. Naturally, there are different levels and that's why there's a CoC committee to consider what's fair and reasonable and at least part of that will probably take into consideration an individual's role in the community. > There was a time when Open Source was about code and community. It is clear > that it is becoming about authority and politics. This isn't actually anything new, to be clear, this is simply a definition and documentation to provide clarity and a seperate committee which Core is delegating out responsibility to. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
