On 2018-09-16 00:00, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > On 15/09/18 08:17, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, this. The PG community is mostly nice people, AFAICT. I'll be >> astonished (and worried) if the CoC committee finds much to do. We're >> implementing this mostly to make newcomers to the project feel that >> it's a safe space. > > Agreed. However I think the all-of-life clause gives an open door to > potential less than well intentioned new members joining up to extend a > SJW agenda. So in fact the unintended consequence of this may be a > *less* safe place for some existing members - unless all of their social > media utterances are agreeable to the angry militant left. This is my only concern, there are some very sensitive people out there just looking for scandal / publicity. No reason to give them a larger attack surface. Maybe that sounds paranoid but look around, there are folks that want to spread the US culture war to every front, including open source projects on the internet. This sentence in the CoC should be worded to exclude things that are not directed harassment when outside of the community spaces. For example, some "incorrect opinion" on Twitter should have little bearing if it wasn't meant as an "attack". Maybe for extreme cases there could be a "hey you're making us look bad and scaring people away, chill with the hate speech or leave" clause, but that should only apply if it is someone whose name is publicly associated with Postgres and they are saying really terrible things. I feel there is a big difference between keeping it civil/safe in the lists and conferences, and making people afraid to say anything controversial (in the USA) anywhere ever. Maybe the way the committee is set up, it will handle this fairly. But it's better to be explicit about it IMO, so as not to attract professional complainers. -- Stephen
