On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:35 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 09/18/2018 01:47 PM, James Keener wrote:
> > following a long consultation process
>
> It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored.
> Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down
> everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's
> opinions and concerns were taken into consideration.
I respectfully disagree.
I'm not sure which dissenting voices you think were ignored, but from
what I've observed in the various CoC threads the core team took the
time to respond to all comments. That does not necessarily mean the
resulting CoC makes everyone happy, but unfortunately that's not quite
possible. And it does not mean it was not an honest consultation.
IMO the core team did a good job in listening to comments, tweaking the
wording and/or explaining the reasoning. Kudos to them.
I said I would stand aside my objections after the last point I mentioned them but I did not feel that my particular objection and concern with regard to one specific sentence added got much of a hearing. This being said, it is genuinely hard to sort through the noise and try to reach the signal. I think the resurgence of the debate about whether we need a code of conduct made it very difficult to discuss specific objections to specific wording. So to be honest the breakdown was mutual.
> There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is
> overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always
> simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.
No, they were not. There were multiple long discussions about exactly
these dangers, You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored.
Also those of us who had specific, actionable concerns were often drowned out by the noise. That's deeply unfortunate.
I think those of us who had specific concerns about one specific sentence that was added were drowned out by those who seemed to be opposed to the idea of a code of conduct generally.
I would have appreciated at least a reason why the concerns I had about the fact that the addition a) doesn't cover what it is needs to cover, and b) will attract complaints that it shouldn't cover was not considered valid. But I can understand that given the noise-to-signal ratio of the discussion made such discussion next to impossible.
Again I find that regrettable.
> > Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to
> ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone
> to join and participate in.
>
> I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social
> ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this
> is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club.
>
Ultimately, it's a matter of trust that the CoC committee and core team
apply the CoC in a careful and cautious way. Based on my personal
experience with most of the people involved in both groups I'm not
worried about this part.
I would actually go further than you here. The CoC committee *cannot* apply the CoC in the way that the opponents fear. The fact is, Europe has anti-discrimination laws regarding social and political ideology (something the US might want to consider as it would help avoid problems on this list ;-) ). And different continents have different norms on these sorts of things. Pushing a social ideology via the code of conduct would, I suspect, result in everything from legal action to large emerging markets going elsewhere. So I don't think ti is a question of "trust us" but rather that the community won't let that sort of abuse happen no matter who is on the CoC committee.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
