I hesitate to exacerbate what is a society-wide debate that is being worked out across organizations across the spectrum, but if I may provide a thought for consideration.
The framing and language of the Code of Conduct, as written and proposed, includes a large number of checkpoints to protect those accused of violations of the code of conduct: Confidentiality, the Good Faith clause that actually puts risk on those who report behavior under the code, a scaling of consequences that is weighted *heavily* towards providing second and third chances to those who may be accused of violating the code.
In the examples that have been raised in this discussion, it would seem to me to be unreasonable for an investigation to result in a finding that the code had been violated to the extent that any kind of public consequence would be warranted. Indeed, were the examples cited to be adjudicated under this code, I am confident we as a community would discover the code to be working as designed, rather than the opposite.
If the objection is to the possibility of being reported at all for your own behavior that you believe is not in violation, that's a different matter. But if that is the concern, than the objection is not to *this* code of conduct but to ANY code of conduct, because any code of conduct is inherently going to introduce risk of being reported for everyone. And if you believe strongly that a given statement you may have made is not objectionable...you should be willing to defend it in an adjudication investigation. If you are not willing to defend it in an adjudication investigation, then you are tacitly (at least) acknowledging the statement was not in keeping withe standards represented by the code.
This code of conduct as written, in my opinion, merely holds every member of our community responsible for owning our words and behavior, and the consequences thereof. I believe that we are adult enough to be willing to take responsibility for ourselves.
Just my $0.02.
Evan Macbeth
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:50 AM, James Keener <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I find a lot of neo-con/trumpian political stances moronic, short-sighted, and anti-intellectual and therefore consider them offensive, an affront on my way of life, and a stain on my country.
1) Can I report anyone holding such views and discussing them on a 3rd party forum?
2) Could I be reported for saying the above on a 3rd party forum?
Obviously the pg mailing list isn't a place for such discussion, but is being a member of this community a deal with the devil to give up my right to free speech elsewhere?
Jim--On September 14, 2018 6:10:47 AM EDT, Chris Travers <chris.travers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ilya Kosmodemiansky <ik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I really have to object to this addition:
> "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
> whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure, so long
> as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a
> conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
> That covers things like public twitter messages over live political
> controversies which might not be personally directed. At least if one is
> going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for
> non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and
> politics. Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble. See, for example,
> what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to encourage use of
> this to silence political controversies unrelated to PostgreSQL.
I think, this point has nothing to do with _correct_ discussions or
public tweets.
If one community member tweets publicly and in a way which abuses
other community members, it is obvious CoC violation. It is hard to
imagine healthy community if someone interacts with others correctly
on the list or at a conference because the CoC stops him doing things
which he will do on private capacity to the same people when CoC
doesnt apply.
If someone reports CoC violation just because other community member's
_correct_ public tweet or whatsoever expressed different
political/philosophical/religious views, this is a quite different
story. I suppose CoC committee and/or Core team in this case should
explain the reporter the purpose of CoC rather than automatically
enforce it.So first, I think what the clause is trying to do is address cases where harassment targeting a particular community member takes place outside the infrastructure and frankly ensuring that the code of conduct applies in these cases is important and something I agree with.However, let's look at problem cases:"I am enough of a Marxist to see gender as a qualitative relationship to biological reproduction and maybe economic production too."I can totally imagine someone arguing that such a tweet might be abusive, and certainly not "correct."Or consider:"The effort to push GLBT rights on family-business economies is nothing more than an effort at corporate neocolonialism."Which would make the problem more clear. Whether or not a comment like that occurring outside postgresql.org infrastructure would be considered "correct" or "abusive" is ultimately a political decision and something which, once that fight is picked, has no reasonable solution in an international and cross-cultural product (where issues like sexuality, economics, and how gender and individualism intersect will vary dramatically across members around the world). There are people who will assume that both of the above statements are personally offensive and attacks on the basis of gender identity even if they are critiques of political agendas severable from that. Worse, the sense of attack themselves could be seen as attacks on culture or religions of other participants.Now neither of these comments would be tolerated as viewpoints expressed on PostgreSQL.org email lists because they are off-topic, but once one expands the code of conduct in this way they become fair game. Given the way culture war issues are shaping up particularly in the US, I think one has to be very careful not to set an expectation that this applies to literally everything that anyone does anywhere.So maybe something more like:"Conduct that occurs outside the postgresql.org infrastructure is not automatically excluded from enforcement of this code of conduct. In particular if other parties are unable to act, and if it is, on balance, in the interest of the global community to apply the code of conduct, then the code of conduct shall apply."
> --
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
> Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
> lock-in.
> http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
--Best Wishes,Chris TraversEfficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Evan Macbeth - Director of Support - Crunchy Data
+1 443-421-0343 - evan.macbeth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
