On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sure and that is unfortunate but isn't it up to the individual to deal with > it through appropriate channels for whatever platform they are on? All of > these platforms are: > > 1. Voluntary to use > 2. Have their own Terms of Use and complaint departments > 3. If it is abuse there are laws > > I agree that within Postgresql.org we must have a professional code of > conduct but the idea that an arbitrary committee appointed by an unelected > board can decide the fate of a community member based on actions outside of > the community is a bit authoritarian don't you think? The choice of the committee members is hardly arbitrary. Having committee members be appointed by core is more or less consistent with how the community has always dealt with disciplinary issues. The criteria used by core were discussed quite openly. While the risk that the committee will yield their power in an "authoritarian" way seems very small, it cannot be ruled out entirely. In fact, it hasn't been ruled out by the draft CoC itself. No CoC can possibly provide for every conceivable situation. Somebody has to interpret the rules, and it has to be possible to impose sanctions when the CoC is violated -- otherwise, what's the point? There are several checks and balances in place, and I for one have confidence in the process as outlined. It's imperfect, but quite a lot better than either the status quo, or a platitude about inclusivity. -- Peter Geoghegan
