Thread

Code of Conduct plan

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> — 2016-01-27T05:11:07Z

Community members:

A number of people have contacted the Core Team about taking action
regarding a Code of Conduct (CoC) for the project. After some
discussion, the plan we have come up with is below.

**Please do not reply-all to this email, as we do not wish to generate
additional list traffic regarding CoCs**

1. The Core Team will appoint an exploration committee which will look
at various proposals (including the one drafted on pgsql-general) for
CoCs and discuss them. This committee will include both major community
members and less central folks who have hands-on experience with CoCs
and community management issues.  If you know of PostgreSQL community
members who have relevant experience, please nominate them by emailing
the core team: pgsql-core@postgresql.org.

2. We will also hire a professional consultant to advise the committee
on CoC development, adoption, training, and enforcement.  Again, if
community members have a consultant to recommend, please email the core
team.

3. This committee will post a draft CoC or possibly a selection of draft
CoCs by or before late April for community comment.  Likely the
committee will be publishing drafts more frequently, but that will be up
to them to work out.

4. At the pgCon Community Unconference, and again at pgconf.EU, we will
have sessions where people can discuss and provide feedback about
proposed (or adopted) CoCs.  Possibly we will have CoC-related trainings
as well.

5. Once a draft is agreed upon, it will be circulated to our various
sub-communities for comment.

6. A "final" CoC will be endorsed by the committee and the Core Team
shortly after pgConf.EU, unless there is sufficently strong consensus to
adopt one before then.

Yes, we realize this is a long timeline.  The PostgreSQL Project has
never been about implementing things in a hurry; our practice has always
been to take all of the time required to develop the right feature the
right way.  Adopting a CoC is no different; if anything, we need to take
*more* time in order to get input from community members who do not
speak up frequently or assertively.

In the meantime, our policy remains: if you have experienced harassment
or feel that you are being treated unfairly by other project members,
email the Core Team and we will investigate your complaint and take
appropriate action.

Also, we want to thank Josh Drake for raising the CoC issue and getting
it off the TODO list and into process, and devising an initial "seed"
CoC.  Such things are all too easy to keep postponing.

Again, Please DO NOT comment on this plan on-list; one of the pieces of
feedback we have received loud and clear is that many community members
are unhappy with the amount of list traffic devoted to the subject of
CoCs.  As such, if you have comments on the plan above, please email the
core team instead of replying on-list, or wait for the committee and
address comments to them.

--Josh Berkus
  PostgreSQL Core Team

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2016-02-12T16:43:49Z

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> 1. The Core Team will appoint an exploration committee which will look
> at various proposals (including the one drafted on pgsql-general) for
> CoCs and discuss them.

To follow up on this ...

The Core Team are pleased to announce that Stacey Haysler has accepted
our invitation to chair the exploratory committee on a Postgres Code of
Conduct.  Stacey is very well qualified to do this, since she is a well
known member of the Postgres community and has had an extended career in
human resources, including creation and implementation of
anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.

Stacey will be reaching out to potential committee members over the next
few days or weeks.  Once the committee is assembled, they will devise
some way (possibly a new mailing list, though I don't want to pre-judge
it) for the wider community to have input into the discussions.
In the meantime, we ask that people continue to refrain from flooding
pgsql-general or other existing PG lists with CoC-related threads.
There will be a time and a place for those discussions, but not yet.

If you have interest or concerns about this process, you can contact
Stacey at shayslerpgx@gmail.com or the Core Team at
pgsql-core@postgresql.org.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-03T18:29:59Z

Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
to draft a CoC [1].  That process has taken far longer than expected,
but the committee has not been idle.  They worked through many comments
and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
of the core team.  This final(?) draft can be found at

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
coc@postgresql.org.

The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
but shortly.

Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
July 1 2018.

			regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56A8516B.8000105@agliodbs.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> — 2018-06-03T19:19:38Z

Is there some archive of the discussion that brought on this effort and the
considerations of the committee itself? I wish I had seen the earlier
announcements in 2016 as I would have definitely participated.

Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents within
the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the first
place? I'm curious about the specific impetus that brought about
Postgresql's efforts to consider one. I've read the other comments in the
general list but I'm more interested in the specifics motivations and
efforts by the CoC committee.

  thanks,

  -- Ben Scherrey

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
> the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
> to draft a CoC [1].  That process has taken far longer than expected,
> but the committee has not been idle.  They worked through many comments
> and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
> of the core team.  This final(?) draft can be found at
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>
> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
> Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
> If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
> coc@postgresql.org.
>
> The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
> but shortly.
>
> Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
> of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
> July 1 2018.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56A8516B.8000105@agliodbs.com
>
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2018-06-03T19:32:33Z

On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
> the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
> to draft a CoC [1].  That process has taken far longer than expected,
> but the committee has not been idle.  They worked through many comments
> and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
> of the core team.  This final(?) draft can be found at
> 
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
> 
> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
> Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
> If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
> coc@postgresql.org.
> 
> The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
> but shortly.
> 
> Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
> of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
> July 1 2018.

My comments:

1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of problem. 
Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.

2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into 
disrepute, ..."
This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen outside 
the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be handled 
where they occur not here.

3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered 
offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such 
conduct. "
Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of people 
these days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with someone to 
have it called offensive. This section should be removed as proscribed 
behavior is called out in detail in the paragraphs above it.

> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56A8516B.8000105@agliodbs.com
> 
> 

-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-03T21:47:58Z

Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
> Is there some archive of the discussion that brought on this effort and the
> considerations of the committee itself? I wish I had seen the earlier
> announcements in 2016 as I would have definitely participated.

If you poke around in our mailing list archives for early 2016 (Jan/Feb),
you'll find a number of threads about it.  Mostly on the -general list,
IIRC.

> Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents within
> the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
> participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
> brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the first
> place?

I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.

In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
length in 2016.  It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
the community wants a CoC.  I don't think any useful purpose will be
served by re-litigating that point.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Berend Tober <btober@computer.org> — 2018-06-03T21:54:16Z

Tom Lane wrote:
> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community...
>
> We are now asking for a final round of community comments...

I really like that this was included: "Any allegations that prove not to be substantiated...will be 
viewed as a serious community offense and a violation of this Code of Conduct."

Good attempt to prevent the CoC being used as vindictive weaponry.

I also like that you kept is short.

-- B

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2018-06-03T21:58:12Z

On 06/03/2018 02:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
>> Is there some archive of the discussion that brought on this effort and the
>> considerations of the committee itself? I wish I had seen the earlier
>> announcements in 2016 as I would have definitely participated.
> 
> If you poke around in our mailing list archives for early 2016 (Jan/Feb),
> you'll find a number of threads about it.  Mostly on the -general list,
> IIRC.
> 
>> Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents within
>> the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
>> participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
>> brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the first
>> place?
> 
> I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
> Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
> them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
> You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
> happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
> that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.
> 
> In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
> length in 2016.  It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
> the community wants a CoC.  I don't think any useful purpose will be

Since there was never a community vote taken I am not sure how it was 
determined there was a majority in favor. From what I remember of the 
online discussion the opinion was evenly split on the need for a CoC.

> served by re-litigating that point.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> 


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> — 2018-06-03T21:59:28Z

On 06/03/2018 04:54 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
>> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community...
>>
>> We are now asking for a final round of community comments...
>
> I really like that this was included: "Any allegations that prove not to 
> be substantiated...will be viewed as a serious community offense and a 
> violation of this Code of Conduct."
>
> Good attempt to prevent the CoC being used as vindictive weaponry.

But a futile attempt: "A lie can travel half way around the world while the 
truth is putting on its shoes."


-- 
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Gavin Flower <gavinflower@archidevsys.co.nz> — 2018-06-03T23:08:06Z

On 04/06/18 07:32, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
>> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
>> the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
>> to draft a CoC [1].  That process has taken far longer than expected,
>> but the committee has not been idle.  They worked through many comments
>> and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
>> of the core team.  This final(?) draft can be found at
>>
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>
>> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
>> Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
>> If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
>> coc@postgresql.org.
>>
>> The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced 
>> separately,
>> but shortly.
>>
>> Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a 
>> result
>> of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
>> July 1 2018.
>
> My comments:
>
> 1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of 
> problem. Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.
>
> 2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project 
> into disrepute, ..."
> This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen 
> outside the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be 
> handled where they occur not here.
>
> 3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered 
> offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such 
> conduct. "
> Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of people 
> these days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with someone to 
> have it called offensive. This section should be removed as proscribed 
> behavior is called out in detail in the paragraphs above it.
I might possibly say that "I'm the master in this area" when talking to 
someone on a technical subject.  In the sense that I'm better at that 
particular skill, but some hypersensitive American could get their 
knickers in a twist (notice, that in this context, no gender is implied 
-- also in using that that expression "get their knickers in a twist" 
could offend some snowflake) claiming that I'm suggesting that whoever 
I'm talking to is my slave!  I heard of an American university that 
doesn't want people to use the term master, like in an MSc, because of 
the history of slavery.

I've used the expressions "sacrifice a willing virgin" and "offering my 
first born to the gods" as ways to ensure success of resolving a 
technical issue.  The people I say that to, know what I mean -- and they 
implicitly know that I'm not seriously suggesting such conduct.  Yet, if 
I wrote that publicly, it is conceivable that someone might object!

There are a lot of words and phrases that are okay in some cultures, but 
may be offensive in others -- even within the ame country.

Consider a past advertising campaign in Australia to sell government 
Bonds.  They used two very common hand gestures that are very 
Australian.  Bond sales dropped.  On investigation, they found the bonds 
were mainly bought by old Greek people, who found the gestures obscene.  
The gestures?  Thumbs up, and the okay gesture formed by touching the 
thumb with the next finger -- nothing sexually suggestive to most 
Australians, but traditional Greeks found them offensive.

You should look at the hoohaa over what Linus Torvalds says.  I've read 
several of his posts and seen videos were he has been less than polite.  
But I know when he is coming from.  If Linus was rude to me, I would be 
chuffed, because than I'd know I was good enough for him to reply to me, 
but that either I could have done better or that Linus was wrong.  For 
example see the email exchange with the infamous Sarah Sharp 
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/407.  At the 2015 Australian Linux 
Conference, I watched as Sarah harangued Linus for over twenty minutes, 
Linus kept calm and polite throughout.

So common words and phrases could be offensive to some people. Sometimes 
people just need to let of stream.

You could end up with people being excessively polite to show their 
displeasure.  Come across the expression "icely polite" -- it was a way 
of showing contempt while denying the victim any excuse for a deadly 
duel!  Which would lead to the issue that people wouldn't always know if 
the politeness was real, or if it was intended to show disdain.

Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!

Cheers,
Gavin

>
>>
>>             regards, tom lane
>>
>> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56A8516B.8000105@agliodbs.com
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Guyren Howe <guyren@gmail.com> — 2018-06-03T23:35:04Z

On Jun 3, 2018, at 16:08 , Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!

+1 this is a distraction.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> — 2018-06-04T00:09:30Z

Some people are not paying attention and are sending code-of-conduct comments to 
all lists, not just pgsql-general, but -hackers and -advocacy too.

I've seen 3 of these so far today.

This is a reminder to please send the comments to pgsql-general only.

-- Darren Duncan

On 2018-06-03 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
> Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
> If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
> coc@postgresql.org.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jonathan Katz <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> — 2018-06-04T00:57:40Z

> On Jun 3, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> On 04/06/18 07:32, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
>>> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
>>> the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
>>> to draft a CoC [1].  That process has taken far longer than expected,
>>> but the committee has not been idle.  They worked through many comments
>>> and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
>>> of the core team.  This final(?) draft can be found at
>>> 
>>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>> 
>>> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
>>> Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
>>> If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
>>> coc@postgresql.org.
>>> 
>>> The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
>>> but shortly.
>>> 
>>> Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
>>> of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
>>> July 1 2018.
>> 
>> My comments:
>> 
>> 1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of problem. Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.
>> 
>> 2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into disrepute, ..."
>> This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen outside the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be handled where they occur not here.
>> 
>> 3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such conduct. "
>> Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of people these days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with someone to have it called offensive. This section should be removed as proscribed behavior is called out in detail in the paragraphs above it.
> 

[truncated]

> Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!

I believe the main goal of the CoC is the opposite: it’s to ensure that
people do feel welcome to participate in the PostgreSQL community and
that if they are unfortunately subject to an incident that they have a safe
means of reporting it versus codifying what is “correct."

There is also  a committee around the CoC and why there will be multiple
individuals on the committee, so that way any complaints can be fairly
researched, discussed, and resolved. There are also several checks and
balances with the enforcement of the CoC that should help ensure that any
complaints are handled as fairly as possible.

Anyway, a big +1 to the effort of everyone who worked on the CoC for
the past several years. From feedback in other forums through the years,
I know it does make a difference to have a code of conduct in terms of
helping people to feel more welcome and knowing that there is an
avenue for them to voice feedback in the case of an unfortunate incident.

Jonathan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> — 2018-06-04T03:33:41Z

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:47:58 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:

>Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
>
>> Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents within
>> the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
>> participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
>> brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the first
>> place?
>
>I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
>Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
>them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
>You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
>happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
>that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.

Unfortunately, conduct codes generally aren't worth the paper they are
written on.  People who are inclined to behave badly towards others in
the 1st place will do so regardless of any code or any consequences of
violating the code.

The only thing a conduct code really accomplishes is to make some
subset of the signers feel good about themselves.  Actions are more
important than words.

YMMV.

>In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
>length in 2016.  It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
>the community wants a CoC.  I don't think any useful purpose will be
>served by re-litigating that point.
>
>			regards, tom lane

I remember that thread, but I don't remember any vote being taken. And
the participants in the thread were self-selected for interest in the
topic, so any consensus there is not necessarily reflective of the
community at large.

I am completely in favor of civil discourse and behavior, but I am not
in favor of unenforcible red tape.

Just my 2 cents.
George

Re: [HACKERS] Code of Conduct plan

David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> — 2018-06-04T04:21:52Z

On Sunday, June 3, 2018, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:47:58 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> wrote:
>
> >Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
> >
> >> Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents
> within
> >> the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
> >> participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
> >> brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the
> first
> >> place?
> >
> >I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
> >Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
> >them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
> >You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
> >happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
> >that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.
>
> Unfortunately, conduct codes generally aren't worth the paper they are
> written on.  People who are inclined to behave badly towards others in
> the 1st place will do so regardless of any code or any consequences of
> violating the code.


I would say that such a generalization is itself of dubious value.

The only thing a conduct code really accomplishes is to make some
> subset of the signers feel good about themselves.  Actions are more
> important than words.


It communicates that this community has a policing force, which itself is
non-obvious and thus worth communicating, and provides that force
guidelines for action.


> >In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
> >length in 2016.  It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
> >the community wants a CoC.  I don't think any useful purpose will be
> >served by re-litigating that point.
> >
> >                       regards, tom lane
>
> I remember that thread, but I don't remember any vote being taken. And
> the participants in the thread were self-selected for interest in the
> topic, so any consensus there is not necessarily reflective of the
> community at large.


That's pretty much par for the public dynamic of this community.  And, as
noted above, such a policy doesn't need the community at-large's approval:
it's a document that constrains those that wrote it.


> I am completely in favor of civil discourse and behavior, but I am not
> in favor of unenforcible red tape.
>

The core team does have enforcement tools at its disposal.  They are at
least being open about the circumstances and extents under which they would
leverage those tools.

David J.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> — 2018-06-04T13:33:12Z

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
> > Is there some archive of the discussion that brought on this effort and
> the
> > considerations of the committee itself? I wish I had seen the earlier
> > announcements in 2016 as I would have definitely participated.
>
> If you poke around in our mailing list archives for early 2016 (Jan/Feb),
> you'll find a number of threads about it.  Mostly on the -general list,
> IIRC.
>

    I did go back and read through the 2016 content rather thoroughly. But
where has all the discussion been going on for the last two years? Am I to
understand that this effort has been going on in an entirely undocumented
manner? I find that difficult to fathom such a thing happening in this
community so I'm sure my understanding is mistaken. Where can we see the
details of what was considered and what drove the committee to its
apparently final proposal?


> > Another more specific factual question - have there been incidents within
> > the active Postgresql community where behaviour by individuals who are
> > participants in the community have conducted themselves in a manner that
> > brought on the actual need for such a code of conduct to exist in the
> first
> > place?
>
> I believe there were a couple of unfortunate incidents at conferences.
> Now, conferences are generally expected to have their own CoCs and enforce
> them themselves; this CoC is meant more to cover on-line interactions.
> You could argue that we shouldn't create such a CoC until something bad
> happens on-line; but I'd prefer to think that having a CoC might prevent
> that from ever happening at all, which is surely better.
>
> In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
> length in 2016.  It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
> the community wants a CoC.  I don't think any useful purpose will be
> served by re-litigating that point.
>

I also don't want to re-litigate anything and I do trust that core members
and people involved with the effort are acting in good faith for their
efforts. I'd just like to see what that consisted of so that I can consider
it from a fully informed basis and not waste anyone else's time. I've cc'd
Stacey in hopes that perhaps this can be clarified soon. I would like to
review what was considered before I finalize any opinion about what's been
proposed.

thanx & best regards,

    -- Ben Scherrey

Re: [HACKERS] Code of Conduct plan

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2018-06-04T14:06:50Z

On 06/03/2018 09:21 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Sunday, June 3, 2018, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net 
> <mailto:gneuner2@comcast.net>> wrote:

> 
> 
> That's pretty much par for the public dynamic of this community.  And, 
> as noted above, such a policy doesn't need the community at-large's 
> approval: it's a document that constrains those that wrote it.

If that is the case then it is of no real use as only a handful of 
people wrote it. Otherwise could you explain what you mean?

> 
>     I am completely in favor of civil discourse and behavior, but I am not
>     in favor of unenforcible red tape.
> 
> 
> The core team does have enforcement tools at its disposal.  They are at 
> least being open about the circumstances and extents under which they 
> would leverage those tools.
> 
> David J.
> 


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Re: [HACKERS] Code of Conduct plan

David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> — 2018-06-04T14:28:44Z

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
wrote:

> On 06/03/2018 09:21 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
>>
>> That's pretty much par for the public dynamic of this community.  And, as
>> noted above, such a policy doesn't need the community at-large's approval:
>> it's a document that constrains those that wrote it.
>>
>
> If that is the case then it is of no real use as only a handful of people
> wrote it. Otherwise could you explain what you mean?

The core committee can, if they so choose, e.g., remove someones login
from postgresql.org, period.  They don't *need* a published code of conduct
to take action in situations they deem to violate whatever code the members
collectively hold to.  But making it public and publishing a corresponding
dispute resolution process brings a level of openness and formality to the
process that benefits the community as a whole.  While input from those the
Core Team serves is valuable at the end of the day they are a benign
dictatorial committee when it comes to official PGDG policy and actions and
this document is their group think made manifest for others to learn about
and provide feedback as to how they would wish for the Core Team to behave.

And, since the Core Team is delegating the role of community policing to
others, a document detailing that is needed for those other's benefit if
nothing else.

David J.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-04T14:36:40Z

Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
>     I did go back and read through the 2016 content rather thoroughly. But
> where has all the discussion been going on for the last two years?

It's been private, mostly either (a) the exploration committee responding
to comments that were received at PGCon 2016 [1] or privately, or (b) the
core team arguing among ourselves whether we were prepared to support the
draft yet.  I'm embarrassed to admit that a whole lot of the delay has
been due to (b).  Core did finally resolve our differences in in-person
meetings at PGCon 2018, which is why you're seeing this now rather than
some other time.

Anyway, the core discussions certainly aren't going to be made public,
and I doubt that Stacey has any intention of publishing the exploration
committee's private mail either.  If you compare the current draft to
what was available in 2016, I don't think you'll find any differences
that are so substantive as to require public defense.  We tried to make
the wording simpler and less intimidating, but that's about it.

			regards, tom lane

[1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Coc_qa_pgcon2016

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> — 2018-06-04T14:41:57Z

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 at 22:47, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
> length in 2016.  It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
> the community wants a CoC.  I don't think any useful purpose will be
> served by re-litigating that point.

This is somewhat at odds with your message here.

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18630.1454960447%40sss.pgh.pa.us

It's rather disappointing that discussion was effectively silenced
based on the implication that there would be time for further
discussions before the implementation stage, only to have consultation
deferred until late on in the implementation itself.

If we're going to move on from that (as I assume), as to the content
of the CoC itself, can I echo others' comments that

>  engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into disrepute,

is far too open to interpretation.

Geoff

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Evan Macbeth <evan.macbeth@crunchydata.com> — 2018-06-04T14:57:21Z

I just want to chime in and thank all those who worked on this Code of
Conduct. It's well thought out, and I'm personally very glad to see it. I
think this just makes our community and its work stronger. I strongly
support it being put into effect.

Evan Macbeth

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
> the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
> to draft a CoC [1].  That process has taken far longer than expected,
> but the committee has not been idle.  They worked through many comments
> and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
> of the core team.  This final(?) draft can be found at
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>
> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
> Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
> If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
> coc@postgresql.org.
>
> The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
> but shortly.
>
> Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
> of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
> July 1 2018.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56A8516B.8000105@agliodbs.com
>
>


-- 
Evan Macbeth - Director of Support - Crunchy Data
+1 443-421-0343 - evan.macbeth@crunchydata.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-04T16:35:40Z

On 06/03/2018 05:57 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

> Anyway, a big +1 to the effort of everyone who worked on the CoC for
> the past several years. From feedback in other forums through the years,
> I know it does make a difference to have a code of conduct in terms of
> helping people to feel more welcome and knowing that there is an
> avenue for them to voice feedback in the case of an unfortunate incident.

This is the #1 reason for a Code of Conduct.

JD



-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> — 2018-06-04T16:42:23Z

On 06/03/2018 07:57 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
[snip]
> Anyway, a big +1 to the effort of everyone who worked on the CoC for
> the past several years. From feedback in other forums through the years,
> I know it does make a difference to have a code of conduct in terms of
> helping people to feel more welcome and knowing that there is an
> avenue for them to voice feedback in the case of an unfortunate incident.

How will New Users know that the CoC exists, much less read it? Will there 
be a click-through "you must read and accept the CoC before being allowed to 
join a mailing list"?  What about the people already on the mailing list?

-- 
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> — 2018-06-04T16:44:48Z

If there's been so much Bad Behavior that's so Weakened the Community, then 
someone's done an excellent job of hiding that Bad Behavior.

On 06/04/2018 09:57 AM, Evan Macbeth wrote:
> I just want to chime in and thank all those who worked on this Code of 
> Conduct. It's well thought out, and I'm personally very glad to see it. I 
> think this just makes our community and its work stronger. I strongly 
> support it being put into effect.
>
> Evan Macbeth
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us 
> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>
>     Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
>     Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
>     the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
>     to draft a CoC [1].  That process has taken far longer than expected,
>     but the committee has not been idle.  They worked through many comments
>     and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
>     of the core team.  This final(?) draft can be found at
>
>     https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>     <https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct>
>
>     We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
>     Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
>     If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
>     coc@postgresql.org <mailto:coc@postgresql.org>.
>
>     The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
>     but shortly.
>
>     Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
>     of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
>     July 1 2018.
>
>                             regards, tom lane
>
>     [1]
>     https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56A8516B.8000105@agliodbs.com
>     <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56A8516B.8000105@agliodbs.com>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Evan Macbeth - Director of Support - Crunchy Data
> +1 443-421-0343 - evan.macbeth@crunchydata.com 
> <mailto:evan.macbeth@crunchydata.com>

-- 
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-04T16:52:09Z

On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
> 
> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
> Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
> If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
> coc@postgresql.org.

Thanks for all the efforts on this. It is nice to see us explicitly 
moving toward modernizing our community policies and creating an openly 
inclusive community. There are a couple of notes I have about this:

I think we need language that explicitly states that this is about 
participation within postgresql.org only. It is not postgresql.org's 
mission or purpose to police actions outside of their domain. The 
following minor modification would work:

"To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community 
interaction and participation within the Postgresql.org project."

There is no language that protects different political or social views. 
In today's climate it is important especially as we are a worldwide 
project. Something simple like the following should be enough:

"Examples of personal characteristics include, but are not limited to 
age, race, national origin or ancestry, religion, political affiliation, 
social class, gender, or sexual orientation."

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-04T16:59:49Z

On 06/03/2018 04:08 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:

>> My comments:
>>
>> 1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of 
>> problem. Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.
>>
>> 2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project 
>> into disrepute, ..."
>> This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen 
>> outside the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be 
>> handled where they occur not here.

This is good point. There are those who would think that one has 
performed an action that brings the project into disrepute and a similar 
sized bias that suggests that in fact that isn't the case. This based on 
the CoC would be judged by the CoC committee.

It is my hope that PostgreSQL.Org -Core chooses members for that 
committee that are exceedingly diverse otherwise it is just an echo 
chamber for a single ideology and that will destroy this community.

>>
>> 3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered 
>> offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such 
>> conduct. "

>> Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of people 
>> these days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with someone to 
>> have it called offensive. This section should be removed as proscribed 
>> behavior is called out in detail in the paragraphs above it.

"considered offensive by fellow members"

Is definitely too broad. The problem comes in here:

> I might possibly say that "I'm the master in this area" when talking to 
> someone on a technical subject.  In the sense that I'm better at that 
> particular skill, but some hypersensitive American could get their 
> knickers in a twist (notice, that in this context, no gender is implied 
> -- also in using that that expression "get their knickers in a twist" 
> could offend some snowflake) claiming that I'm suggesting that whoever 

"snowflake", I find that term hilarious others find it highly offensive. 
Which is correct?

> I'm talking to is my slave!  I heard of an American university that 
> doesn't want people to use the term master, like in an MSc, because of 
> the history of slavery.

The PostgreSQL project already has this problem, note we don't use the 
terms Master and Slave in reference to replication anymore.

> 
> I've used the expressions "sacrifice a willing virgin" and "offering my 
> first born to the gods" as ways to ensure success of resolving a 
> technical issue.  The people I say that to, know what I mean -- and they 
> implicitly know that I'm not seriously suggesting such conduct.  Yet, if 
> I wrote that publicly, it is conceivable that someone might object!

Yes and that is a problem. We need to have some simple barrier of 
acceptance that we are all adults here (or should act like adults). 
Knowing your audience is important.

> Consider a past advertising campaign in Australia to sell government 
> Bonds.  They used two very common hand gestures that are very 
> Australian.  Bond sales dropped.  On investigation, they found the bonds 
> were mainly bought by old Greek people, who found the gestures obscene. 
> The gestures?  Thumbs up, and the okay gesture formed by touching the 
> thumb with the next finger -- nothing sexually suggestive to most 
> Australians, but traditional Greeks found them offensive.

Using Australia as an example, my understanding is that the word c**t is 
part of nomenclature but in the states the word is taboo and highly 
frowned upon.

> Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!
> 

Correct. I think one way to look at all of this is, "if you wouldn't say 
it to your boss or a client don't say it here". That too has problems 
but generally speaking I think it keeps the restrictions rational.

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-04T17:01:23Z

On 06/04/2018 09:44 AM, Ron wrote:
> If there's been so much Bad Behavior that's so Weakened the Community, 
> then someone's done an excellent job of hiding that Bad Behavior.

The inner circle of any community is very good at protecting itself and 
exerting authority without representation or recourse due to a single 
ideology of protectionism of one's status or potential public blow back 
at said community.

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-04T17:04:19Z

On 06/04/2018 06:33 AM, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:

> 
>      I did go back and read through the 2016 content rather thoroughly. 
> But where has all the discussion been going on for the last two years? 
> Am I to understand that this effort has been going on in an entirely 
> undocumented manner? I find that difficult to fathom such a thing 
> happening in this community so I'm sure my understanding is mistaken. 
> Where can we see the details of what was considered and what drove the 
> committee to its apparently final proposal?

The -core committee has been taking a more direct approach to policies 
within the community without the traditional community input. This is 
both good and bad. Discussions of a policy nature are inherently 
political and thus opening it to the wider community can be a large 
distraction to the purpose of the community.

The downside is that some policies are now coming down via fiat or at 
least very little actual discourse on need, direction or purpose.

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: [MASSMAIL]Re: Code of Conduct plan

gilberto.castillo@etecsa.cu — 2018-06-04T17:06:37Z

El 2018-06-04 12:52, Joshua D. Drake escribió:
> On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>> 
>> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
>> Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
>> If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
>> coc@postgresql.org.
> 
> Thanks for all the efforts on this. It is nice to see us explicitly
> moving toward modernizing our community policies and creating an
> openly inclusive community. There are a couple of notes I have about
> this:
> 
> I think we need language that explicitly states that this is about
> participation within postgresql.org only. It is not postgresql.org's
> mission or purpose to police actions outside of their domain. The
> following minor modification would work:
> 
> "To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community
> interaction and participation within the Postgresql.org project."
> 
> There is no language that protects different political or social
> views. In today's climate it is important especially as we are a
> worldwide project. Something simple like the following should be
> enough:
> 
> "Examples of personal characteristics include, but are not limited to
> age, race, national origin or ancestry, religion, political
> affiliation, social class, gender, or sexual orientation."

i don't know, because a check "Your agree ours rules", may enough.

Categorize, we will can have different interpretation.
> JD

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2018-06-04T17:24:50Z

On 4 Jun 2018, at 17:59, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On 06/03/2018 04:08 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
<snip>
>> I might possibly say that "I'm the master in this area" when talking to someone on a technical subject.  In the sense that I'm better at that particular skill, but some hypersensitive American could get their knickers in a twist (notice, that in this context, no gender is implied -- also in using that that expression "get their knickers in a twist" could offend some snowflake) claiming that I'm suggesting that whoever 
> 
> "snowflake", I find that term hilarious others find it highly offensive. Which is correct?

Like most things, it depends on context. ;)

>> I'm talking to is my slave!  I heard of an American university that doesn't want people to use the term master, like in an MSc, because of the history of slavery.
> 
> The PostgreSQL project already has this problem, note we don't use the terms Master and Slave in reference to replication anymore.
> 
>> I've used the expressions "sacrifice a willing virgin" and "offering my first born to the gods" as ways to ensure success of resolving a technical issue.  The people I say that to, know what I mean -- and they implicitly know that I'm not seriously suggesting such conduct.  Yet, if I wrote that publicly, it is conceivable that someone might object!
> 
> Yes and that is a problem. We need to have some simple barrier of acceptance that we are all adults here (or should act like adults). Knowing your audience is important.
> 
>> Consider a past advertising campaign in Australia to sell government Bonds.  They used two very common hand gestures that are very Australian.  Bond sales dropped.  On investigation, they found the bonds were mainly bought by old Greek people, who found the gestures obscene. The gestures?  Thumbs up, and the okay gesture formed by touching the thumb with the next finger -- nothing sexually suggestive to most Australians, but traditional Greeks found them offensive.
> 
> Using Australia as an example, my understanding is that the word c**t is part of nomenclature but in the states the word is taboo and highly frowned upon.

Yes.  Us Aussie's often use the word "cunt".  Again, depends on context. :)

Personally... I don't think I've used it more than 5 times in total, in the years I've been in the UK.

Those times I did, it was _definitely_ not in a politically correct fashion.  Nor online. YMMV.

>> Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!
> 
> Correct. I think one way to look at all of this is, "if you wouldn't say it to your boss or a client don't say it here". That too has problems but generally speaking I think it keeps the restrictions rational.

Possibly a weird viewpoint, but I personally have a different way of looking at the CoC thing.

From my observations of people so far, it seems like there are two main GROUPings (pun intended :>)
of people:

* Those who like and want rules for everything.  "For without rules how will people know what to do?"
* Those who don't like nor want rules for everything.  "Stop trying to control me!  Let me work out an optimal approach myself!"

It's a scale thing, not black and white.

Personally, I'm somewhere near the middle (it varies slightly over time).

My point being, that when some threshold of "too many rules" is reached the people in the Community
who _don't_ like excess rules will leave.  Conversely, people who _need_ rules in order to feel
comfortable will start to stick around.

Neither group is intrinsically right nor wrong.  They just operate internally differently, and
have different needs.

Adding a CoC will change the quantity-of-fules mix _slightly_, depending on how in-your-face people
are with it.

Our Community will naturally adjust it's makeup over time to reflect this change.

Mentioning the above, as I hope we're going into this "eyes wide open". ;)

+ Justin

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2018-06-04T17:29:01Z

On 4 Jun 2018, at 18:24, Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> wrote:
<snip>
> Adding a CoC will change the quantity-of-fules mix _slightly_, depending on how in-your-face people
> are with it.

s/quantity-of-fules/quantity-of-rules/

Interesting typo though. :)

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jason Petersen <jason@citusdata.com> — 2018-06-04T18:41:28Z

> On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:59 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> 
> "snowflake", I find that term hilarious others find it highly offensive. Which is correct?

I don’t think it’s offensive but it plainly fails your “if you wouldn’t say it to a client, don’t say it here” test.

Generally we so-called “snowflakes” aren’t the ones raising hell about CoCs, which is the third rail I’ve seen most likely to set off the actually hypersensitive types who fling this so-called insult around.

To be honest, examples like “sacrifice a willing virgin” or “offering my first born […]”, etc. do not contribute to conversations but rather bury rhetorical and technical weaknesses under a top layer of historical/emotional semiotic thatch that must be cut through to appropriately determine the validity of an argument. I do not understand what one might hope to preserve by ensuring users of such phrases are permitted to continue putting up such smokescreens.

Ultimately, the important thing this CoC provides is some concrete language to point at when a party is aggrieved and explicit avenues of redress available when one refuses to address one’s own behavior. We’re adults here, the strawmen of people being harangued out of the community because they said a bad word are unlikely to materialize.

+1

--
Jason Petersen
Software Engineer | Citus Data
303.736.9255
jason@citusdata.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-04T20:46:38Z

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.

> Thanks for all the efforts on this. It is nice to see us explicitly 
> moving toward modernizing our community policies and creating an openly 
> inclusive community. There are a couple of notes I have about this:

> I think we need language that explicitly states that this is about 
> participation within postgresql.org only. It is not postgresql.org's 
> mission or purpose to police actions outside of their domain.

Actually, it's intentional that we are not saying that.  The idea is
that any interaction between PG community members is subject to the CoC,
whether it takes place in postgresql.org infrastructure or not, so long as
there is not another CoC that takes precedence (such as a conference's
CoC).  The reason for this is an unfortunate situation that took place in
the FreeBSD community awhile back [1], wherein one community member was
abusing another via Twitter, and their existing CoC failed to cover that
because it had been explicitly written to cover only community-run forums.
So we're trying to learn from that mistake, and make sure that if such a
situation ever came up here, the CoC committee would have authority to
act.

IIRC, the earliest drafts did have language about like what you suggest
here, but we took it out after the FreeBSD case was pointed out.

> There is no language that protects different political or social views. 
> In today's climate it is important especially as we are a worldwide 
> project. Something simple like the following should be enough:
> "Examples of personal characteristics include, but are not limited to 
> age, race, national origin or ancestry, religion, political affiliation, 
> social class, gender, or sexual orientation."

We've gone back and forth on how long the "examples of personal
characteristics" list ought to be; it was longer before, and some folks
didn't like that.  (For onlookers who don't feel like checking the current
draft, JD has added "political affiliation" and "social class" to the
present text.  The May 2016 draft had seventeen entries and was
undoubtedly way too far in the other direction.)  In the end, since it's
just examples anyway, I'm inclined to keep it short.  We can and will
tweak the text in future if actual problems arise and somebody argues
that their hurtful conduct wasn't proscribed.

In the end, whether reasonable things happen is going to depend on
the reasonableness of the CoC committee members.  That's part of the
reason that we've set it up so that that committee is distinct from,
but answerable to, the core team.  Core will take action if the CoC
committee is seen to be getting out of hand --- though I think that
that's very unlikely to happen.

			regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA59563A-A97B-4FFC-A414-9888392F541B@justatheory.com
(The linked-to discussion unfortunately seems to be 404 now, so I'm
relying on David's summary.)

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Gavin Flower <gavinflower@archidevsys.co.nz> — 2018-06-04T21:16:28Z

On 05/06/18 06:41, Jason Petersen wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:59 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com 
>> <mailto:jd@commandprompt.com>> wrote:
>>
>> "snowflake", I find that term hilarious others find it highly 
>> offensive. Which is correct?
>
> I don’t think it’s offensive but it plainly fails your “if you 
> wouldn’t say it to a client, don’t say it here” test.
>
> Generally we so-called “snowflakes” aren’t the ones raising hell about 
> CoCs, which is the third rail I’ve seen most likely to set off the 
> actually hypersensitive types who fling this so-called insult around.
>
> To be honest, examples like “sacrifice a willing virgin” or “offering 
> my first born […]”, etc. do not contribute to conversations but rather 
> bury rhetorical and technical weaknesses under a top layer of 
> historical/emotional semiotic thatch that must be cut through to 
> appropriately determine the validity of an argument. I do not 
> understand what one might hope to preserve by ensuring users of such 
> phrases are permitted to continue putting up such smokescreens.
Dem der big words you be using!  You are over analysing.

Nothings buried!

Note that in discussing the CoC, I've not used colourful language as 
part of, nor instead of, any argument I've presented -- other than as 
examples.

Any real difficulties would be mentioned explicitly, if not already 
known by the listener.

If a rational argument is needed, it can/will be provided. Colourful 
language is no substitute for valid arguments, that we are agreed. Nor 
should it be used as a smokescreen.

Colourful language makes conversation less stilted when used 
'appropriately', and can help bonding.  A lot depends on context.

One place where I worked, I pretended to blame people for things outside 
their control.  There were 4 people I didn't indulge such humour too:  
the manager (it may well have been his fault, and he would likely take 
it badly in any case), the technical manager (he was too stressed), and 
2 people who obviously did not appreciate that kind of humour.  Others 
had no problem with it.

With some friends/colleagues I've used grossly offensive language. 
However, in the context it's been taking in the spirit intended and not 
at face value.  Though, I'm careful not to overdo it, and not every time 
we spoke.  There are things I  might say face-to-face, that I would not 
write in an email -- as I've no idea of how the reader might be feeling 
when they read, context and body language are important to consider.

>
> Ultimately, the important thing this CoC provides is some concrete 
> language to point at when a party is aggrieved and explicit avenues of 
> redress available when one refuses to address one’s own behavior. 
> We’re adults here, the strawmen of people being harangued out of the 
> community because they said a bad word are unlikely to materialize.
>
> +1

If we are all adults, then we don't need a CoC.

I fear that the CoC is likely to be misused.

Have seen many heated arguments in these lists, but none that got out of 
hand.

I strongly feel that a CoC is neither needed nor useful here. It is a 
Politically Correct check list item.

-100

Cheers,
Gavin

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2018-06-04T21:26:39Z

On 2018-Jun-05, Gavin Flower wrote:

> If we are all adults, then we don't need a CoC.

"We're all adults" is wishful thinking.  Some old people are just kids
who aged but didn't actually mature.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2018-06-04T21:31:12Z

On 2018-06-04 22:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jun-05, Gavin Flower wrote:
> 
>> If we are all adults, then we don't need a CoC.
> 
> "We're all adults" is wishful thinking.  Some old people are just kids
> who aged but didn't actually mature.

Also to point out... there is the occasional teen who does meaningful
stuff with Open Source.

So, "we are all adults here" might not actually be 100% correct. :D

+ Justin

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-04T21:53:45Z

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2018-Jun-05, Gavin Flower wrote:
>> If we are all adults, then we don't need a CoC.

> "We're all adults" is wishful thinking.  Some old people are just kids
> who aged but didn't actually mature.

I'm sure we'd all be ecstatic if the CoC committee never actually has
anything to do.  The point of this exercise is to make new people ---
particularly women and others who have often felt disadvantaged in
technical communities --- feel safe and welcome here.

Also: we *have* had cases where women who had been contributors left
because of harassment, and I'd like to ensure that doesn't happen again.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> — 2018-06-04T22:07:49Z

On 4 June 2018 at 17:53, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2018-Jun-05, Gavin Flower wrote:
> >> If we are all adults, then we don't need a CoC.
>
> > "We're all adults" is wishful thinking.  Some old people are just kids
> > who aged but didn't actually mature.
>
> I'm sure we'd all be ecstatic if the CoC committee never actually has
> anything to do.  The point of this exercise is to make new people ---
> particularly women and others who have often felt disadvantaged in
> technical communities --- feel safe and welcome here.
>
> Also: we *have* had cases where women who had been contributors left
> because of harassment, and I'd like to ensure that doesn't happen again.
>
>
+1000
Dave Cramer

davec@postgresintl.com
www.postgresintl.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-04T22:30:37Z

On 06/04/2018 01:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
> Actually, it's intentional that we are not saying that.  The idea is
> that any interaction between PG community members is subject to the CoC,
> whether it takes place in postgresql.org infrastructure or not, so long as
> there is not another CoC that takes precedence (such as a conference's
> CoC).  The reason for this is an unfortunate situation that took place in
> the FreeBSD community awhile back [1], wherein one community member was
> abusing another via Twitter, and their existing CoC failed to cover that
> because it had been explicitly written to cover only community-run forums.
> So we're trying to learn from that mistake, and make sure that if such a
> situation ever came up here, the CoC committee would have authority to
> act.

O.k. I can see that. The problem I am trying to prevent is contributor X 
being disciplined for behavior that has nothing to do with 
PostgreSQL.Org. I am not sure what the exact good solution is for that 
but it is none of our business if contributor X gets into a fight 
(online or not) with anyone who is not within the PostgreSQL.Org community.

Thanks,

JD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-04T22:41:39Z

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On 06/04/2018 01:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... The reason for this is an unfortunate situation that took place in
>> the FreeBSD community awhile back [1], wherein one community member was
>> abusing another via Twitter, and their existing CoC failed to cover that
>> because it had been explicitly written to cover only community-run forums.
>> So we're trying to learn from that mistake, and make sure that if such a
>> situation ever came up here, the CoC committee would have authority to
>> act.

> O.k. I can see that. The problem I am trying to prevent is contributor X 
> being disciplined for behavior that has nothing to do with 
> PostgreSQL.Org. I am not sure what the exact good solution is for that 
> but it is none of our business if contributor X gets into a fight 
> (online or not) with anyone who is not within the PostgreSQL.Org community.

Fair.  As written, I think that would only fall under the CoC if somebody
made an argument that it was bringing disrepute to the PG community.
The extent to which that would hold up would depend a lot on details,
like who was involved.  Peripheral community members would probably not
be considered to be representing the community ... at the other extreme,
members of the core team had better keep our noses clean at all times.
That's the price of community leadership.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> — 2018-06-04T22:47:06Z

> On Jun 4, 2018, at 3:30 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> 
> On 06/04/2018 01:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>> On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
>> Actually, it's intentional that we are not saying that.  The idea is
>> that any interaction between PG community members is subject to the CoC,
>> whether it takes place in postgresql.org infrastructure or not, so long as
>> there is not another CoC that takes precedence (such as a conference's
>> CoC).  The reason for this is an unfortunate situation that took place in
>> the FreeBSD community awhile back [1], wherein one community member was
>> abusing another via Twitter, and their existing CoC failed to cover that
>> because it had been explicitly written to cover only community-run forums.
>> So we're trying to learn from that mistake, and make sure that if such a
>> situation ever came up here, the CoC committee would have authority to
>> act.
> 
> O.k. I can see that. The problem I am trying to prevent is contributor X being disciplined for behavior that has nothing to do with PostgreSQL.Org. I am not sure what the exact good solution is for that but it is none of our business if contributor X gets into a fight (online or not) with anyone who is not within the PostgreSQL.Org community.

That can be a problem when people who are known by some to be toxic join a community, and those who have previous experience with them leave. That can leave them as a "missing stair" or, worse, if they continue to be horrible but within moderation guidelines they can provoke responses from other participants that can cause them to be moderated or be chastized and then leave. In some cases that has caused the entire culture to drift, and pretty much destroyed the community.

(Community management is hard. The more you formalize some of it the more you have to formalize all of it and do so near-perfectly. Developers, who tend to prefer hard black/white, true/false rules rather than leaving some decisions to personal judgement can be some of the worst people at doing community management, and some of the easiest to manipulate.)

Cheers,
  Steve

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2018-06-04T22:56:28Z

> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
> the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
> to draft a CoC [1].  That process has taken far longer than expected,
> but the committee has not been idle.  They worked through many comments
> and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
> of the core team.  This final(?) draft can be found at
> 
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
> 
> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
> Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
> If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
> coc@postgresql.org.
> 
> The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
> but shortly.
> 
> Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
> of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
> July 1 2018.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56A8516B.8000105@agliodbs.com

Do we want official translations of this? We allow local communities
do their own manual translations. However CoC is so important, I feel
like we need more for Coc. Good thing with CoC is, it is expected that
it would be stable (at least I hope so) and translation works when
it's changed is expected to be minimal, unlike the manual translation
works.

One concern is, who checks for the correctness of the translations. I
think committers could do the job since there are good number of
non-English native speakers in the group.

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jonathan Katz <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> — 2018-06-04T23:04:25Z

> On Jun 4, 2018, at 6:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> On 06/04/2018 01:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ... The reason for this is an unfortunate situation that took place in
>>> the FreeBSD community awhile back [1], wherein one community member was
>>> abusing another via Twitter, and their existing CoC failed to cover that
>>> because it had been explicitly written to cover only community-run forums.
>>> So we're trying to learn from that mistake, and make sure that if such a
>>> situation ever came up here, the CoC committee would have authority to
>>> act.
> 
>> O.k. I can see that. The problem I am trying to prevent is contributor X 
>> being disciplined for behavior that has nothing to do with 
>> PostgreSQL.Org. I am not sure what the exact good solution is for that 
>> but it is none of our business if contributor X gets into a fight 
>> (online or not) with anyone who is not within the PostgreSQL.Org community.
> 
> Fair.  As written, I think that would only fall under the CoC if somebody
> made an argument that it was bringing disrepute to the PG community.
> The extent to which that would hold up would depend a lot on details,
> like who was involved.  Peripheral community members would probably not
> be considered to be representing the community ... at the other extreme,
> members of the core team had better keep our noses clean at all times.
> That's the price of community leadership.

+1.

I would add that if you choose to contribute to PostgreSQL and make
representations that you contribute to PostgreSQL, then you are acting
as an ambassador of the community in various forums, and as such should
be mindful of how you treat people, regardless of your level of contribution.

I would also say I’m less concerned about people fighting (disputes happen
all the time amongst the best of friends) vs. someone targeting and/or harassing
people inappropriately, which is very different.  And to reiterate, according to the
CoC, should someone file a report, it is reviewed by a committee of people
who will do their best to determine whether or not the behavior was inappropriate
and/or brings disrepute to the PG community.

Jonathan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-04T23:07:01Z

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

> Do we want official translations of this? We allow local communities
> do their own manual translations. However CoC is so important, I feel
> like we need more for Coc. Good thing with CoC is, it is expected that
> it would be stable (at least I hope so) and translation works when
> it's changed is expected to be minimal, unlike the manual translation
> works.

Good idea, but let's wait till the text is official; I'm not sure if
we'll change the draft again in response to the current discussions.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2018-06-04T23:15:14Z

>> Do we want official translations of this? We allow local communities
>> do their own manual translations. However CoC is so important, I feel
>> like we need more for Coc. Good thing with CoC is, it is expected that
>> it would be stable (at least I hope so) and translation works when
>> it's changed is expected to be minimal, unlike the manual translation
>> works.
> 
> Good idea, but let's wait till the text is official; I'm not sure if
> we'll change the draft again in response to the current discussions.

Of course. I will wait for the text to be settled down.

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> — 2018-06-04T23:20:40Z

On 05/06/18 01:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
>>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
> 
>> Do we want official translations of this? We allow local communities
>> do their own manual translations. However CoC is so important, I feel
>> like we need more for Coc. Good thing with CoC is, it is expected that
>> it would be stable (at least I hope so) and translation works when
>> it's changed is expected to be minimal, unlike the manual translation
>> works.
> 
> Good idea, but let's wait till the text is official; I'm not sure if
> we'll change the draft again in response to the current discussions.

Also I think official text should have its own page on the website,
rather than just be on the wiki.  Hopefully that's already planned.
-- 
Vik Fearing                                          +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-04T23:23:56Z

Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Also I think official text should have its own page on the website,
> rather than just be on the wiki.  Hopefully that's already planned.

Right; we'll mark the formal blessing of the text by moving it onto
the main website.  The translated versions should end up there too.

(I believe there are plans afoot to move all the "locked" wiki pages'
content to the main site, but I'm not involved in making that happen.)

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-05T00:18:24Z

Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> writes:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 at 22:47, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating
>> length in 2016.  It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of
>> the community wants a CoC.  I don't think any useful purpose will be
>> served by re-litigating that point.

> This is somewhat at odds with your message here.
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18630.1454960447%40sss.pgh.pa.us

> It's rather disappointing that discussion was effectively silenced
> based on the implication that there would be time for further
> discussions before the implementation stage, only to have consultation
> deferred until late on in the implementation itself.

I think you're forgetting the sequence of events.  That was posted in
Feb 2016.  In May 2016 we posted a draft CoC which was open for public
discussion, and was discussed extensively at a public meeting at PGCon
in that same month [1], and the draft was subsequently revised a good bit
as a result of that, and republished [2].  It's taken us (mainly meaning
core, not the exploration committee) way too long to agree to a final
draft from there, but claiming that there's been no public input is just
wrong.

> If we're going to move on from that (as I assume), as to the content
> of the CoC itself, can I echo others' comments that

>> engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into disrepute,

> is far too open to interpretation.

Yeah, it's fuzzy, but as Steve Atkins notes downthread, black and white
is hard to get to in this game.  I do not think dropping the provision
altogether would be a good thing, nor would lawyering it to death be an
improvement.  We're better off applying Justice Stewart's "I know it
when I see it" approach.

In reality I suspect actions under that provision will be quite rare.
You'd need somebody to actually file a complaint, and then for the CoC
committee to agree that it's a good-faith complaint and not a form of
using the CoC as a weapon.  Given reasonable people on the committee,
that seems like it'll be a fairly high bar to clear.  But, given an
unambiguous case, I'd want the committee to be able to take action.

			regards, tom lane

[1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Coc_qa_pgcon2016
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+OCxowroZoDXk0O9NpyXTJ9dTnD8RiPvJXxK4xD=dA5w7c=cg@mail.gmail.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-05T00:36:18Z

On 06/04/2018 05:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> writes:
>> If we're going to move on from that (as I assume), as to the content
>> of the CoC itself, can I echo others' comments that
> 
>>> engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into disrepute,
> 
>> is far too open to interpretation.
> 
> Yeah, it's fuzzy, but as Steve Atkins notes downthread, black and white
> is hard to get to in this game.  I do not think dropping the provision
> altogether would be a good thing, nor would lawyering it to death be an
> improvement.  We're better off applying Justice Stewart's "I know it
> when I see it" approach.
> 

Yeah, I think we have to be careful to not overdue this. We need to come 
at this with, "Everyone has the best intentions" else it is just going 
to fail.

JD



-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jonathan Katz <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> — 2018-06-05T03:08:21Z

> On Jun 4, 2018, at 7:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
> Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Also I think official text should have its own page on the website,
>> rather than just be on the wiki.  Hopefully that's already planned.
> 
> Right; we'll mark the formal blessing of the text by moving it onto
> the main website.  The translated versions should end up there too.

I assumed this would be put onto the website, just wanting for the
“final word.”

And +1 for translations.

Jonathan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-05T04:55:13Z

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> writes:
> On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.

> My comments:

> 1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of problem. 

As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm aware of at least one actual case of a
person leaving the community because of harassment.  I do not think
it's a hypothetical problem.  Whether a CoC can fix it remains to
be seen, but doing nothing will certainly not fix it.

> 2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into 
> disrepute, ..."
> This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen outside 
> the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be handled 
> where they occur not here.

See discussion elsewhere in thread, particularly the FreeBSD precedent
about actions "outside the community".  We shouldn't be too legalistic
about exactly where that boundary is.

> 3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered 
> offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such 
> conduct. "
> Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of people 
> these days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with someone to 
> have it called offensive. This section should be removed as proscribed 
> behavior is called out in detail in the paragraphs above it.

I'm not following this complaint.  That's part of the conclusion,
which is *supposed* to restate what came before it, with more concision
and hence necessarily less precision.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@adjust.com> — 2018-06-05T14:45:54Z

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:

> On 06/03/2018 04:08 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>
> My comments:
>>>
>>> 1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of problem.
>>> Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.
>>>
>>> 2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into
>>> disrepute, ..."
>>> This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen outside
>>> the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be handled where
>>> they occur not here.
>>>
>>
> This is good point. There are those who would think that one has performed
> an action that brings the project into disrepute and a similar sized bias
> that suggests that in fact that isn't the case. This based on the CoC would
> be judged by the CoC committee.
>
> It is my hope that PostgreSQL.Org -Core chooses members for that committee
> that are exceedingly diverse otherwise it is just an echo chamber for a
> single ideology and that will destroy this community.


If I may suggest:  The committee should be international as well and
include people from around the world.  The last thing we want is for it to
be dominated by people from one particular cultural viewpoint.


>
>
>
>>> 3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered
>>> offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such conduct.
>>> "
>>>
>>
> Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of people these
>>> days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with someone to have it
>>> called offensive. This section should be removed as proscribed behavior is
>>> called out in detail in the paragraphs above it.
>>>
>>
> "considered offensive by fellow members"
>
> Is definitely too broad. The problem comes in here:
>
> I might possibly say that "I'm the master in this area" when talking to
>> someone on a technical subject.  In the sense that I'm better at that
>> particular skill, but some hypersensitive American could get their knickers
>> in a twist (notice, that in this context, no gender is implied -- also in
>> using that that expression "get their knickers in a twist" could offend
>> some snowflake) claiming that I'm suggesting that whoever
>>
>
> "snowflake", I find that term hilarious others find it highly offensive.
> Which is correct?


I agree with both concerns in the above exchange.

This is an economic common project.  The goal should be for people to come
together and act civilly.  Waging culture war using the code of conduct
itself should be a violation of the code of conduct and this goes on *all*
(not just one or two) sides.


>
>
> I'm talking to is my slave!  I heard of an American university that
>> doesn't want people to use the term master, like in an MSc, because of the
>> history of slavery.
>>
>
> The PostgreSQL project already has this problem, note we don't use the
> terms Master and Slave in reference to replication anymore.
>
>
>> I've used the expressions "sacrifice a willing virgin" and "offering my
>> first born to the gods" as ways to ensure success of resolving a technical
>> issue.  The people I say that to, know what I mean -- and they implicitly
>> know that I'm not seriously suggesting such conduct.  Yet, if I wrote that
>> publicly, it is conceivable that someone might object!
>>
>
> Yes and that is a problem. We need to have some simple barrier of
> acceptance that we are all adults here (or should act like adults). Knowing
> your audience is important.


I would point out also that the PostgreSQL community is nice and mature.
At PGConf US I saw what appeared to be two individuals with red MAGA hats.
And yet everyone managed to be civil.  We manage to do better than the US
does on the whole in this regard and we should be proud of ourselves.


>
>
> Consider a past advertising campaign in Australia to sell government
>> Bonds.  They used two very common hand gestures that are very Australian.
>> Bond sales dropped.  On investigation, they found the bonds were mainly
>> bought by old Greek people, who found the gestures obscene. The gestures?
>> Thumbs up, and the okay gesture formed by touching the thumb with the next
>> finger -- nothing sexually suggestive to most Australians, but traditional
>> Greeks found them offensive.
>>
>
> Using Australia as an example, my understanding is that the word c**t is
> part of nomenclature but in the states the word is taboo and highly frowned
> upon.


Again key point that a CoC committee needs to be international and used to
addressing these sorts of issues.


>
>
> Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!
>>
>>
> Correct. I think one way to look at all of this is, "if you wouldn't say
> it to your boss or a client don't say it here". That too has problems but
> generally speaking I think it keeps the restrictions rational.
>
>
I will post a more specific set of thoughts here but in general I think the
presumption ought to be that people are trying to work together.
Misunderstanding can happen.  But let's try to act in a collegial and
generally respectful way around eachother.

-- 
Best Regards,
Chris Travers
Database Administrator

Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com
Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin

Re: [MASSMAIL]Re: Code of Conduct plan

gilberto.castillo@etecsa.cu — 2018-06-05T14:54:45Z

Hello,

Maybe must include policy of money support from several at member from 
country less earnings. For examplo Cuba.


El 2018-06-05 10:45, Chris Travers escribió:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/03/2018 04:08 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>> 
>> My comments:
>> 
>> 1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of
>> problem. Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.
>> 
>> 2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project
>> into disrepute, ..."
>> This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen
>> outside the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be
>> handled where they occur not here.
> 
>  This is good point. There are those who would think that one has
> performed an action that brings the project into disrepute and a
> similar sized bias that suggests that in fact that isn't the case.
> This based on the CoC would be judged by the CoC committee.
> 
> It is my hope that PostgreSQL.Org -Core chooses members for that
> committee that are exceedingly diverse otherwise it is just an echo
> chamber for a single ideology and that will destroy this community.
> 
> If I may suggest:  The committee should be international as well and
> include people from around the world.  The last thing we want is for
> it to be dominated by people from one particular cultural viewpoint.
> 
>> 3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered
>> offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such
>> conduct. "
> 
>>> Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of
>>> people these days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with
>>> someone to have it called offensive. This section should be
>>> removed as proscribed behavior is called out in detail in the
>>> paragraphs above it.
> 
> "considered offensive by fellow members"
> 
>  Is definitely too broad. The problem comes in here:
> 
>> I might possibly say that "I'm the master in this area" when talking
>> to someone on a technical subject.  In the sense that I'm better at
>> that particular skill, but some hypersensitive American could get
>> their knickers in a twist (notice, that in this context, no gender
>> is implied -- also in using that that expression "get their knickers
>> in a twist" could offend some snowflake) claiming that I'm
>> suggesting that whoever
> 
>  "snowflake", I find that term hilarious others find it highly
> offensive. Which is correct?
> 
> I agree with both concerns in the above exchange.
> 
> This is an economic common project.  The goal should be for people to
> come together and act civilly.  Waging culture war using the code of
> conduct itself should be a violation of the code of conduct and this
> goes on *all* (not just one or two) sides.
> 
>>> I'm talking to is my slave!  I heard of an American university
>>> that doesn't want people to use the term master, like in an MSc,
>>> because of the history of slavery.
>> 
>> The PostgreSQL project already has this problem, note we don't use
>> the terms Master and Slave in reference to replication anymore.
>> 
>>> I've used the expressions "sacrifice a willing virgin" and
>>> "offering my first born to the gods" as ways to ensure success of
>>> resolving a technical issue.  The people I say that to, know what
>>> I mean -- and they implicitly know that I'm not seriously
>>> suggesting such conduct.  Yet, if I wrote that publicly, it is
>>> conceivable that someone might object!
>> 
>> Yes and that is a problem. We need to have some simple barrier of
>> acceptance that we are all adults here (or should act like adults).
>> Knowing your audience is important.
> 
> I would point out also that the PostgreSQL community is nice and
> mature.  At PGConf US I saw what appeared to be two individuals with
> red MAGA hats.  And yet everyone managed to be civil.  We manage to do
> better than the US does on the whole in this regard and we should be
> proud of ourselves.
> 
>>> Consider a past advertising campaign in Australia to sell
>>> government Bonds.  They used two very common hand gestures that
>>> are very Australian.  Bond sales dropped.  On investigation, they
>>> found the bonds were mainly bought by old Greek people, who found
>>> the gestures obscene. The gestures?  Thumbs up, and the okay
>>> gesture formed by touching the thumb with the next finger --
>>> nothing sexually suggestive to most Australians, but traditional
>>> Greeks found them offensive.
>> 
>> Using Australia as an example, my understanding is that the word
>> c**t is part of nomenclature but in the states the word is taboo and
>> highly frowned upon.
> 
> Again key point that a CoC committee needs to be international and
> used to addressing these sorts of issues.
> 
>>> Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!
>> 
>> Correct. I think one way to look at all of this is, "if you
>> wouldn't say it to your boss or a client don't say it here". That
>> too has problems but generally speaking I think it keeps the
>> restrictions rational.
> 
> I will post a more specific set of thoughts here but in general I
> think the presumption ought to be that people are trying to work
> together.  Misunderstanding can happen.  But let's try to act in a
> collegial and generally respectful way around eachother.
> 
> --
> 
> Best Regards,
> Chris Travers
> Database Administrator
> 
> Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com [1]
> Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.adjust.com/

Re: [MASSMAIL]Re: Code of Conduct plan

gilberto.castillo@etecsa.cu — 2018-06-05T14:57:54Z

El 2018-06-05 10:54, gilberto.castillo@etecsa.cu escribió:
> Hello,
> 
> Maybe must include policy of money support from several at member from
> country less earnings.
> 
> 
> El 2018-06-05 10:45, Chris Travers escribió:
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 06/03/2018 04:08 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>>> 
>>> My comments:
>>> 
>>> 1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of
>>> problem. Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.
>>> 
>>> 2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project
>>> into disrepute, ..."
>>> This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen
>>> outside the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be
>>> handled where they occur not here.
>> 
>>  This is good point. There are those who would think that one has
>> performed an action that brings the project into disrepute and a
>> similar sized bias that suggests that in fact that isn't the case.
>> This based on the CoC would be judged by the CoC committee.
>> 
>> It is my hope that PostgreSQL.Org -Core chooses members for that
>> committee that are exceedingly diverse otherwise it is just an echo
>> chamber for a single ideology and that will destroy this community.
>> 
>> If I may suggest:  The committee should be international as well and
>> include people from around the world.  The last thing we want is for
>> it to be dominated by people from one particular cultural viewpoint.
>> 
>>> 3) "... members must be sensitive to conduct that may be considered
>>> offensive by fellow members and must refrain from engaging in such
>>> conduct. "
>> 
>>>> Again overly broad, especially given the hypersensitivity of
>>>> people these days. I have found that it is enough to disagree with
>>>> someone to have it called offensive. This section should be
>>>> removed as proscribed behavior is called out in detail in the
>>>> paragraphs above it.
>> 
>> "considered offensive by fellow members"
>> 
>>  Is definitely too broad. The problem comes in here:
>> 
>>> I might possibly say that "I'm the master in this area" when talking
>>> to someone on a technical subject.  In the sense that I'm better at
>>> that particular skill, but some hypersensitive American could get
>>> their knickers in a twist (notice, that in this context, no gender
>>> is implied -- also in using that that expression "get their knickers
>>> in a twist" could offend some snowflake) claiming that I'm
>>> suggesting that whoever
>> 
>>  "snowflake", I find that term hilarious others find it highly
>> offensive. Which is correct?
>> 
>> I agree with both concerns in the above exchange.
>> 
>> This is an economic common project.  The goal should be for people to
>> come together and act civilly.  Waging culture war using the code of
>> conduct itself should be a violation of the code of conduct and this
>> goes on *all* (not just one or two) sides.
>> 
>>>> I'm talking to is my slave!  I heard of an American university
>>>> that doesn't want people to use the term master, like in an MSc,
>>>> because of the history of slavery.
>>> 
>>> The PostgreSQL project already has this problem, note we don't use
>>> the terms Master and Slave in reference to replication anymore.
>>> 
>>>> I've used the expressions "sacrifice a willing virgin" and
>>>> "offering my first born to the gods" as ways to ensure success of
>>>> resolving a technical issue.  The people I say that to, know what
>>>> I mean -- and they implicitly know that I'm not seriously
>>>> suggesting such conduct.  Yet, if I wrote that publicly, it is
>>>> conceivable that someone might object!
>>> 
>>> Yes and that is a problem. We need to have some simple barrier of
>>> acceptance that we are all adults here (or should act like adults).
>>> Knowing your audience is important.
>> 
>> I would point out also that the PostgreSQL community is nice and
>> mature.  At PGConf US I saw what appeared to be two individuals with
>> red MAGA hats.  And yet everyone managed to be civil.  We manage to do
>> better than the US does on the whole in this regard and we should be
>> proud of ourselves.
>> 
>>>> Consider a past advertising campaign in Australia to sell
>>>> government Bonds.  They used two very common hand gestures that
>>>> are very Australian.  Bond sales dropped.  On investigation, they
>>>> found the bonds were mainly bought by old Greek people, who found
>>>> the gestures obscene. The gestures?  Thumbs up, and the okay
>>>> gesture formed by touching the thumb with the next finger --
>>>> nothing sexually suggestive to most Australians, but traditional
>>>> Greeks found them offensive.
>>> 
>>> Using Australia as an example, my understanding is that the word
>>> c**t is part of nomenclature but in the states the word is taboo and
>>> highly frowned upon.
>> 
>> Again key point that a CoC committee needs to be international and
>> used to addressing these sorts of issues.
>> 
>>>> Be very careful in attempting to codify 'correct' behaviour!
>>> 
>>> Correct. I think one way to look at all of this is, "if you
>>> wouldn't say it to your boss or a client don't say it here". That
>>> too has problems but generally speaking I think it keeps the
>>> restrictions rational.
>> 
>> I will post a more specific set of thoughts here but in general I
>> think the presumption ought to be that people are trying to work
>> together.  Misunderstanding can happen.  But let's try to act in a
>> collegial and generally respectful way around eachother.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Chris Travers
>> Database Administrator
>> 
>> Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com [1]
>> Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://www.adjust.com/

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-06-05T15:03:44Z

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
> the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
> to draft a CoC [1].  That process has taken far longer than expected,
> but the committee has not been idle.  They worked through many comments
> and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
> of the core team.  This final(?) draft can be found at
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

Reading through this, it seems like a generally useful and fair set of
rules.    I want to offer some comments though about some specific issues
here.

>
>
> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
> Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
> If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
> coc@postgresql.org.
>
> The initial membership of the CoC committee will be announced separately,
> but shortly.
>

One of the issues I see here is the issue of cross-cultural attacks, and a
certain American slant on where inappropriate behavior might begin when it
comes to disparaging remarks.  In my blog I covered one hypothetical about
an argument via email signatures over a culture war issue like same-sex
marriage for example where one side might put forth an American viewpoint
and someone else might condemn sexual ethics that permit accepting
homosexual contact using, say, Gandhi as an authority.

This is a serious issue.  It won't go away.  There will be, at some point,
Americans trying to push these sorts of issues via email signatures and the
like, and it will cause conflict.  The current code of conduct makes it
very clear that the second viewpoint is not welcome, but is very ambiguous
on the first viewpoint.  I.e. arguing that marriage shouldn't be a bond
that binds parents to their children but solely exists for the benefit of
the spouses could be a cultural attack and hence an attack on the national
backgrounds of many people in the community around the world but that isn't
clear.  My concern is that the current code of conduct will lead to these
disputes ensuring that the CoC community gets to decide who gets to feel
like they are not protected, and I think we all agree that's not what we
want.

For this reason I think the introduction should be left as is, but I would
suggest one of two modifications to the second section (Inclusivity):

1.  Either include culture as a part of the protected criteria to indicate
that this definitely is protected and that culture-war pushing will not be
tolerated any more than any other disturbance of the peace, or
2.  Note that trolling or divisive political behavior likely to threaten
the peace will be dealt with as a violation of the code of conduct, or
3.  Simply demand civility and leave a lot of the examples out.

On to the code of conduct committee:

This needs to be explicitly international and ideally people from very
different cultures.  This is the best protection against one small group
within one country deciding to push a political agenda via the Code of
Conduct.  I would recommend adding a note here that the committee will be
international and culturally diverse, and tasked with keeping the peace and
facilitating a productive and collegial environment.

> Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
> of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
> July 1 2018.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56A8516B.8000105@agliodbs.com
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Lutz Horn <lutz.horn@posteo.de> — 2018-06-05T15:19:36Z

Am 05.06.2018 17:03 schrieb Chris Travers:
> On to the code of conduct committee:
> 
> This needs to be explicitly international and ideally people from very
> different cultures.  This is the best protection against one small 
> group
> within one country deciding to push a political agenda via the Code of
> Conduct.  I would recommend adding a note here that the committee will 
> be
> international and culturally diverse, and tasked with keeping the peace 
> and
> facilitating a productive and collegial environment.

I strongly agree with this.

CoCs discussed in other projects have an inclination towards US view 
points. Maybe the reason for this is that many community members are US 
residents and are having the problems of their society in mind when 
thinking of what a CoC should be. But what is acceptable in the US might 
be unacceptable in other parts of the world and vice versa.

Please procure that the CoC is not a vehicle to propagate US values.

Regards

Lutz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-05T15:26:19Z

On 06/04/2018 09:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> writes:
>> On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
> 
>> My comments:
> 
>> 1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of problem.
> 
> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm aware of at least one actual case of a
> person leaving the community because of harassment.  I do not think
> it's a hypothetical problem.  Whether a CoC can fix it remains to
> be seen, but doing nothing will certainly not fix it.

Adrian,

As one of the people that interacts with external members of the 
community more than most, I can tell you that a CoC is something the 
wider community wants. I have sat in feedback meetings with hundreds of 
people who are potential community members. These people have ranged in 
age, gender, sexual orientation and technical capability on all realms 
of the spectrum. The majority of them aren't interested if we do not 
have a written Code of Conduct.

All PostgreSQL contributors should be looking at this as an opportunity 
to grow our community in a more open and diverse way.

Thanks,

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-05T15:29:43Z

On 06/05/2018 07:45 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

>     It is my hope that PostgreSQL.Org -Core chooses members for that
>     committee that are exceedingly diverse otherwise it is just an echo
>     chamber for a single ideology and that will destroy this community.
> 
> 
> If I may suggest:  The committee should be international as well and 
> include people from around the world.  The last thing we want is for it 
> to be dominated by people from one particular cultural viewpoint.
> 

+1


>     "considered offensive by fellow members"
> 
>     Is definitely too broad. The problem comes in here:
> 
>         I might possibly say that "I'm the master in this area" when
>         talking to someone on a technical subject.  In the sense that
>         I'm better at that particular skill, but some hypersensitive
>         American could get their knickers in a twist (notice, that in
>         this context, no gender is implied -- also in using that that
>         expression "get their knickers in a twist" could offend some
>         snowflake) claiming that I'm suggesting that whoever
> 
> 
>     "snowflake", I find that term hilarious others find it highly
>     offensive. Which is correct?
> 
> 
> I agree with both concerns in the above exchange.
> 
> This is an economic common project.  The goal should be for people to 
> come together and act civilly.  Waging culture war using the code of 
> conduct itself should be a violation of the code of conduct and this 
> goes on *all* (not just one or two) sides.
> 

[snip]

> 
>     Yes and that is a problem. We need to have some simple barrier of
>     acceptance that we are all adults here (or should act like adults).
>     Knowing your audience is important.
> 
> 
> I would point out also that the PostgreSQL community is nice and 
> mature.  At PGConf US I saw what appeared to be two individuals with red 
> MAGA hats.  And yet everyone managed to be civil.  We manage to do 
> better than the US does on the whole in this regard and we should be 
> proud of ourselves.

To be fair, those were South Africans but yes, nobody gave them any 
public grief as far as I know.

> 
>     Correct. I think one way to look at all of this is, "if you wouldn't
>     say it to your boss or a client don't say it here". That too has
>     problems but generally speaking I think it keeps the restrictions
>     rational.
> 
> 
> I will post a more specific set of thoughts here but in general I think 
> the presumption ought to be that people are trying to work together.  
> Misunderstanding can happen.  But let's try to act in a collegial and 
> generally respectful way around eachother.

+1

JD




-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-05T15:33:22Z

On 06/05/2018 08:19 AM, Lutz Horn wrote:
> Am 05.06.2018 17:03 schrieb Chris Travers:
>> On to the code of conduct committee:
>>
>> This needs to be explicitly international and ideally people from very
>> different cultures.  This is the best protection against one small group
>> within one country deciding to push a political agenda via the Code of
>> Conduct.  I would recommend adding a note here that the committee will be
>> international and culturally diverse, and tasked with keeping the 
>> peace and
>> facilitating a productive and collegial environment.
> 
> I strongly agree with this.
> 
> CoCs discussed in other projects have an inclination towards US view 
> points. Maybe the reason for this is that many community members are US 
> residents and are having the problems of their society in mind when 
> thinking of what a CoC should be. But what is acceptable in the US might 
> be unacceptable in other parts of the world and vice versa.
> 
> Please procure that the CoC is not a vehicle to propagate US values.

Let's remember that we are an International project and let's not direct 
particular frustration at any particular set of values. It would be very 
easy to start a culture war within this thread alone.

JD




-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2018-06-05T15:37:11Z

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Jason Petersen <jason@citusdata.com> wrote:
> Ultimately, the important thing this CoC provides is some concrete language
> to point at when a party is aggrieved and explicit avenues of redress
> available when one refuses to address one’s own behavior. We’re adults here,
> the strawmen of people being harangued out of the community because they
> said a bad word are unlikely to materialize.
>
> +1

This seems like a good summary on the purpose of the CoC.

It is of course possible that a member of the committee could act in
bad faith for any number of reasons. You can say the same thing about
any position of leadership or authority within the community, though.
That hasn't really been much of a problem in my experience, and I see
no reason for particular concern about it here.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Lutz Horn <lutz.horn@posteo.de> — 2018-06-05T15:39:25Z

Am 05.06.2018 17:33 schrieb Joshua D. Drake:
> Let's remember that we are an International project and let's not
> direct particular frustration at any particular set of values. It
> would be very easy to start a culture war within this thread alone.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "particular frustration". I think 
that it is obvious that most CoCs are not, for example, developed by 
communities in Africa or Asia. Most are developed in North America and 
Europe with a strong weight in the US. Observing this does not claim 
that the values voiced by the vocal majority are good or bad, only that 
they can be biased.

That's why I support the nottion of making the international character 
of both the project and the board explicit.

Regards

Lutz

Re: [MASSMAIL]Re: Code of Conduct plan

gilberto.castillo@etecsa.cu — 2018-06-05T15:39:56Z

O.K,

Remember my Country Please!!!!.


El 2018-06-05 11:29, Joshua D. Drake escribió:
> On 06/05/2018 07:45 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> 
>>     It is my hope that PostgreSQL.Org -Core chooses members for that
>>     committee that are exceedingly diverse otherwise it is just an 
>> echo
>>     chamber for a single ideology and that will destroy this 
>> community.
>> 
>> 
>> If I may suggest:  The committee should be international as well and 
>> include people from around the world.  The last thing we want is for 
>> it to be dominated by people from one particular cultural viewpoint.
>> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
>>     "considered offensive by fellow members"
>> 
>>     Is definitely too broad. The problem comes in here:
>> 
>>         I might possibly say that "I'm the master in this area" when
>>         talking to someone on a technical subject.  In the sense that
>>         I'm better at that particular skill, but some hypersensitive
>>         American could get their knickers in a twist (notice, that in
>>         this context, no gender is implied -- also in using that that
>>         expression "get their knickers in a twist" could offend some
>>         snowflake) claiming that I'm suggesting that whoever
>> 
>> 
>>     "snowflake", I find that term hilarious others find it highly
>>     offensive. Which is correct?
>> 
>> 
>> I agree with both concerns in the above exchange.
>> 
>> This is an economic common project.  The goal should be for people to 
>> come together and act civilly.  Waging culture war using the code of 
>> conduct itself should be a violation of the code of conduct and this 
>> goes on *all* (not just one or two) sides.
>> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> 
>>     Yes and that is a problem. We need to have some simple barrier of
>>     acceptance that we are all adults here (or should act like 
>> adults).
>>     Knowing your audience is important.
>> 
>> 
>> I would point out also that the PostgreSQL community is nice and 
>> mature.  At PGConf US I saw what appeared to be two individuals with 
>> red MAGA hats.  And yet everyone managed to be civil.  We manage to do 
>> better than the US does on the whole in this regard and we should be 
>> proud of ourselves.
> 
> To be fair, those were South Africans but yes, nobody gave them any
> public grief as far as I know.
> 
>> 
>>     Correct. I think one way to look at all of this is, "if you 
>> wouldn't
>>     say it to your boss or a client don't say it here". That too has
>>     problems but generally speaking I think it keeps the restrictions
>>     rational.
>> 
>> 
>> I will post a more specific set of thoughts here but in general I 
>> think the presumption ought to be that people are trying to work 
>> together.  Misunderstanding can happen.  But let's try to act in a 
>> collegial and generally respectful way around eachother.
> 
> +1
> 
> JD

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Lutz Horn <lutz.horn@posteo.de> — 2018-06-05T15:41:31Z

Am 05.06.2018 17:26 schrieb Joshua D. Drake:
> As one of the people that interacts with external members of the
> community more than most, I can tell you that a CoC is something the
> wider community wants. I have sat in feedback meetings with hundreds
> of people who are potential community members. These people have
> ranged in age, gender, sexual orientation and technical capability on
> all realms of the spectrum. The majority of them aren't interested if
> we do not have a written Code of Conduct.

May I ask what the context of these meetings was? Where where they held? 
For which country or part of the broader community where the 
participants representative?

Regards

Lutz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-05T15:48:06Z

On 06/05/2018 08:41 AM, Lutz Horn wrote:
> Am 05.06.2018 17:26 schrieb Joshua D. Drake:
>> As one of the people that interacts with external members of the
>> community more than most, I can tell you that a CoC is something the
>> wider community wants. I have sat in feedback meetings with hundreds
>> of people who are potential community members. These people have
>> ranged in age, gender, sexual orientation and technical capability on
>> all realms of the spectrum. The majority of them aren't interested if
>> we do not have a written Code of Conduct.
> 
> May I ask what the context of these meetings was? Where where they held? 
> For which country or part of the broader community where the 
> participants representative?

Happy to discuss offlist. I don't want to distract from this thread.

jD

> 
> Regards
> 
> Lutz
> 
> 


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> — 2018-06-05T15:49:06Z

On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 at 01:18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I think you're forgetting the sequence of events.  That was posted in
> Feb 2016.  In May 2016 we posted a draft CoC which was open for public
> discussion, and was discussed extensively at a public meeting at PGCon
> in that same month [1], and the draft was subsequently revised a good bit
> as a result of that, and republished [2].  It's taken us (mainly meaning
> core, not the exploration committee) way too long to agree to a final
> draft from there, but claiming that there's been no public input is just
> wrong.

Fair; however I still maintain that there was no further consultation
on whether one was required, which was the implication of your
message, and which your latest email implied had occurred when it
suggests that the wider community was consulted on whether it is
required.

However searching through the lists for concepts, rather than words,
is pretty difficult, so it's quite possible that I missed the email
asking for votes and as I said, I'm just going to drop that one.

> In reality I suspect actions under that provision will be quite rare.
> You'd need somebody to actually file a complaint, and then for the CoC
> committee to agree that it's a good-faith complaint and not a form of
> using the CoC as a weapon.  Given reasonable people on the committee,
> that seems like it'll be a fairly high bar to clear.  But, given an
> unambiguous case, I'd want the committee to be able to take action.

I'm just worried that expressing a political (or other) opinion on
(eg) twitter that some people find disagreeable could easily be
considered to bring the community into disrepute.

eg a patent lawyer might reasonably consider that a hypothetical core
developer (let's call him Lon Tame :P ) making public statements on an
ongoing patent dispute implying that the case is baseless could make
patent lawyers look upon the PostgreSQL community less favourably, ie
his actions have done damage to the reputation of PostgreSQL in the
eyes of other patent lawyers.

I'm pretty sure no-one here (or indeed on the committee) would think
that that was reasonable but because of the wording a court might well
disagree; I'm not a lawyer so I'm unsure whether you could leave
yourself open to action in the event that the person bringing the
complaint considers it was mishandled by the committee: by including
this line there's a potential legal argument that you really don't
need to be having.

Geoff

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> — 2018-06-05T15:49:06Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:

> It is of course possible that a member of the committee could act in
> bad faith for any number of reasons. You can say the same thing about
> any position of leadership or authority within the community, though.
> That hasn't really been much of a problem in my experience, and I see
> no reason for particular concern about it here.
>

I thought the same thing as a member of the Django community. It adopted a
CoC that I vocally warned was dangerous and far more likely to be abused
than provide any benefit. I was shocked when the very first time it was
ever invoked it was by one of the founders of the project (whom I
previously personally respected) and it was absolutely used in the manner
that I had feared which was to shut someone up whose opinion he did not
like rather than any legitimate concern. Unfortunately this is not such an
unusual circumstance as one might hope in these projects or conferences. It
is impossible to separate the concept of political correctness from these
CoCs I find and they are much more dangerous things than they appear. We
should tread with extreme cautious about adopting such a thing.

  -- Ben Scherrey

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> — 2018-06-05T15:50:18Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:

> On 06/05/2018 08:41 AM, Lutz Horn wrote:
>
>> Am 05.06.2018 17:26 schrieb Joshua D. Drake:
>>
>>> As one of the people that interacts with external members of the
>>> community more than most, I can tell you that a CoC is something the
>>> wider community wants. I have sat in feedback meetings with hundreds
>>> of people who are potential community members. These people have
>>> ranged in age, gender, sexual orientation and technical capability on
>>> all realms of the spectrum. The majority of them aren't interested if
>>> we do not have a written Code of Conduct.
>>>
>>
>> May I ask what the context of these meetings was? Where where they held?
>> For which country or part of the broader community where the participants
>> representative?
>>
>
> Happy to discuss offlist. I don't want to distract from this thread.
>

I want to know as well. I've been asking for this kind of backgrounder
information and nothing has been forthcoming.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2018-06-05T16:06:47Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@adjust.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/03/2018 04:08 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>>
>> My comments:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of
>>>> problem. Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below.
>>>>
>>>> 2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into
>>>> disrepute, ..."
>>>> This to me is overly broad and pulls in actions that may happen outside
>>>> the community. Those if they are actually an issue should be handled where
>>>> they occur not here.
>>>>
>>>
>> This is good point. There are those who would think that one has
>> performed an action that brings the project into disrepute and a similar
>> sized bias that suggests that in fact that isn't the case. This based on
>> the CoC would be judged by the CoC committee.
>>
>> It is my hope that PostgreSQL.Org -Core chooses members for that
>> committee that are exceedingly diverse otherwise it is just an echo chamber
>> for a single ideology and that will destroy this community.
>
>
> If I may suggest:  The committee should be international as well and
> include people from around the world.  The last thing we want is for it to
> be dominated by people from one particular cultural viewpoint.
>

It will be. This is the PostgreSQL *global* development group and project,
after all. Yes, there is definitely a slant in the project in general
towards the US side, as is true in many other such projects, but in general
we have decent coverage of other cultures and countries as well. We can't
cover them all  on the committee (that would make for a gicantic
committee), but we can cover it with people who are used to communicating
and working with people from other areas as well, which makes for a better
understanding.

It won't be perfect in the first attempt, of course, but that one is
covered.

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-06-05T16:06:54Z

Do we need a code of conduct like this, or so we need a more general dispute resolution process? Something that is public and aimed at mediating disputes (even ones about bad conduct) and removing repeat offenders.  To be honest, larger issues of harassment should be handled by the police.

A code of conduct is basically "be excellent to each other", but what that means is never going to be well codified in a document anyone can produce. It's why we have a judiciary in the "real world".

I don't participate too much here, but I've never see a group implement a code of conduct go well. I'm a fairly socially liberal person, but have been told in one group that my views as a cis, hetero, white, middle class make aren't welcome in discussions about getting more women or minorities to participate. Specifically there was a discussion in that group about how since women often bare the burden of child care, even when both partners work, that side projects as a hiring criteria are sexist. I mentioned that as an involved father I also find little time to work on side projects and that the issue is more about those with kids than specifically women and was essentially run out of the group.

Another time, same group, someone was discussing guns, and someone else said that this kind of discussion is why women don't participate much. I mentioned that I know more women who own guns, hunt, and target shoot than I do men who do that. I was again told to shut up and banded for a few days when I pressed as to why a not-male-centric discussion was being censored in the name of sexism and fairness.

How will this CoC handle these situation? I obviously offended people and had no intention of doing so. I was also told that the moderators/CoC commitee would act fairly, and I obviously believe I was mistreated by them. Forgive me for not believing in the benevolence of the governors.

Jim

On June 5, 2018 11:49:06 AM EDT, Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
>> It is of course possible that a member of the committee could act in
>> bad faith for any number of reasons. You can say the same thing about
>> any position of leadership or authority within the community, though.
>> That hasn't really been much of a problem in my experience, and I see
>> no reason for particular concern about it here.
>>
>
>I thought the same thing as a member of the Django community. It
>adopted a
>CoC that I vocally warned was dangerous and far more likely to be
>abused
>than provide any benefit. I was shocked when the very first time it was
>ever invoked it was by one of the founders of the project (whom I
>previously personally respected) and it was absolutely used in the
>manner
>that I had feared which was to shut someone up whose opinion he did not
>like rather than any legitimate concern. Unfortunately this is not such
>an
>unusual circumstance as one might hope in these projects or
>conferences. It
>is impossible to separate the concept of political correctness from
>these
>CoCs I find and they are much more dangerous things than they appear.
>We
>should tread with extreme cautious about adopting such a thing.
>
>  -- Ben Scherrey

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2018-06-05T16:20:25Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Benjamin Scherrey
<scherrey@proteus-tech.com> wrote:
> I thought the same thing as a member of the Django community. It adopted a
> CoC that I vocally warned was dangerous and far more likely to be abused
> than provide any benefit. I was shocked when the very first time it was ever
> invoked it was by one of the founders of the project (whom I previously
> personally respected) and it was absolutely used in the manner that I had
> feared which was to shut someone up whose opinion he did not like rather
> than any legitimate concern. Unfortunately this is not such an unusual
> circumstance as one might hope in these projects or conferences. It is
> impossible to separate the concept of political correctness from these CoCs
> I find and they are much more dangerous things than they appear. We should
> tread with extreme cautious about adopting such a thing.

It's impossible for me to know what really happened in that situation,
but it doesn't seem like the CoC was likely to have been much of a
factor in any telling. If this individual was in a position of
influence and decided to act maliciously, they would no doubt have
found another way to do so in the absence of a CoC. On the other hand,
it's easy to imagine a newer non-influential community member finding
no recourse against abusive behavior because that isn't explicitly
provided for; they might simply not know where to start, and become
totally discouraged.

Nobody is claiming that the CoC is perfect, or that it can anticipate
every situation; it's just a framework for handling disputes about
abusive and/or antisocial behavior. The core team have had exclusive
responsibility for "Handling disciplinary issues" as part of their
charter, at least until now. You can make exactly the same slippery
slope argument against that.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-06-05T16:21:51Z

I also think that a CoC focuses on the wrong things. If someone is disruptive, they need to be told to leave, just like in every forum ever.

We should focus on ensuring that the code and documentation is free from slurs and culturally specific idioms. We should hold gatekeepers accountable for making decisions based on technical merit and not the person who proposed an idea or submitted a patch.

We can't control the behavior of the internet as a whole. We can control our codebase and our gatekeepers.

Jim

On June 5, 2018 12:06:54 PM EDT, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:
>Do we need a code of conduct like this, or so we need a more general
>dispute resolution process? Something that is public and aimed at
>mediating disputes (even ones about bad conduct) and removing repeat
>offenders.  To be honest, larger issues of harassment should be handled
>by the police.
>
>A code of conduct is basically "be excellent to each other", but what
>that means is never going to be well codified in a document anyone can
>produce. It's why we have a judiciary in the "real world".
>
>I don't participate too much here, but I've never see a group implement
>a code of conduct go well. I'm a fairly socially liberal person, but
>have been told in one group that my views as a cis, hetero, white,
>middle class make aren't welcome in discussions about getting more
>women or minorities to participate. Specifically there was a discussion
>in that group about how since women often bare the burden of child
>care, even when both partners work, that side projects as a hiring
>criteria are sexist. I mentioned that as an involved father I also find
>little time to work on side projects and that the issue is more about
>those with kids than specifically women and was essentially run out of
>the group.
>
>Another time, same group, someone was discussing guns, and someone else
>said that this kind of discussion is why women don't participate much.
>I mentioned that I know more women who own guns, hunt, and target shoot
>than I do men who do that. I was again told to shut up and banded for a
>few days when I pressed as to why a not-male-centric discussion was
>being censored in the name of sexism and fairness.
>
>How will this CoC handle these situation? I obviously offended people
>and had no intention of doing so. I was also told that the
>moderators/CoC commitee would act fairly, and I obviously believe I was
>mistreated by them. Forgive me for not believing in the benevolence of
>the governors.
>
>Jim
>
>On June 5, 2018 11:49:06 AM EDT, Benjamin Scherrey
><scherrey@proteus-tech.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> It is of course possible that a member of the committee could act in
>>> bad faith for any number of reasons. You can say the same thing
>about
>>> any position of leadership or authority within the community,
>though.
>>> That hasn't really been much of a problem in my experience, and I
>see
>>> no reason for particular concern about it here.
>>>
>>
>>I thought the same thing as a member of the Django community. It
>>adopted a
>>CoC that I vocally warned was dangerous and far more likely to be
>>abused
>>than provide any benefit. I was shocked when the very first time it
>was
>>ever invoked it was by one of the founders of the project (whom I
>>previously personally respected) and it was absolutely used in the
>>manner
>>that I had feared which was to shut someone up whose opinion he did
>not
>>like rather than any legitimate concern. Unfortunately this is not
>such
>>an
>>unusual circumstance as one might hope in these projects or
>>conferences. It
>>is impossible to separate the concept of political correctness from
>>these
>>CoCs I find and they are much more dangerous things than they appear.
>>We
>>should tread with extreme cautious about adopting such a thing.
>>
>>  -- Ben Scherrey
>
>-- 
>Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-06-05T16:24:56Z

> Nobody is claiming that the CoC is perfect, or that it can anticipate
every situation; it's just a framework for handling disputes about
abusive and/or antisocial behavior

1) Antisocial is a cop-outs word that is so broad as to be useless. That previous sentence can be classified as antisocial because of its accusive tone.

2) Why do we need a separate process for personal disputes that have no parties who officially represent the organization in any way?

Jim
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-05T16:32:25Z

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> writes:
> Do we need a code of conduct like this, or so we need a more general
> dispute resolution process?

We haven't really had many "disputes" in general, so I'm not sure why you
feel that something else is needed.  In any case, given that not everyone
is even happy with the notion of a CoC, moving for something that's even
more far-reaching seems unlikely to succeed right now.  Perhaps we can
revisit the scope of coverage in a few years when we have some experience
with this version.

> A code of conduct is basically "be excellent to each other", but what
> that means is never going to be well codified in a document anyone can
> produce. It's why we have a judiciary in the "real world".

Agreed, and that's why we need a committee to resolve the actual meaning
of "be excellent to each other" in any particular situation.  We've not
tried to nail down exact behavior requirements in the document.

> I don't participate too much here, but I've never see a group implement
> a code of conduct go well.

Yeah, personally I'm a bit worried about this too.  The proposed CoC
does contain provisions to try to prevent misusing it, but whether those
are strong enough remains to be seen --- and it'll depend a good deal
on the judgment of the committee members.  We have a provision in there
for periodic review of the CoC, and it'll be important to adjust it if
we see abuses.

In general, the PG community has a long track record of mostly civil
interactions, so I'm optimistic that that will continue.  The CoC should
only come into play in cases where people are not following community
norms.  If we were trying to impose a CoC to improve a situation where
not-so-civil interactions were common, I agree that it likely wouldn't
work.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-05T16:36:37Z

On 06/05/2018 09:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> writes:
>> I don't participate too much here, but I've never see a group implement
>> a code of conduct go well.
> 
> Yeah, personally I'm a bit worried about this too.  The proposed CoC
> does contain provisions to try to prevent misusing it, but whether those
> are strong enough remains to be seen --- and it'll depend a good deal
> on the judgment of the committee members.  We have a provision in there
> for periodic review of the CoC, and it'll be important to adjust it if
> we see abuses.

A community that has an exceedingly reasonable and popular CoC is Ubuntu:

https://www.ubuntu.com/community/code-of-conduct

JD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> — 2018-06-05T16:45:51Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 11:36 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:

> On 06/05/2018 09:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> writes:
>>
>>> I don't participate too much here, but I've never see a group implement
>>> a code of conduct go well.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, personally I'm a bit worried about this too.  The proposed CoC
>> does contain provisions to try to prevent misusing it, but whether those
>> are strong enough remains to be seen --- and it'll depend a good deal
>> on the judgment of the committee members.  We have a provision in there
>> for periodic review of the CoC, and it'll be important to adjust it if
>> we see abuses.
>>
>
> A community that has an exceedingly reasonable and popular CoC is Ubuntu:
>
> https://www.ubuntu.com/community/code-of-conduct
>


> A community that is the most successful open project in history and didn't
> need a CoC is the Linux kernel project. I'd say we more better resemble the
> later than the former.:-)
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jonathan Katz <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> — 2018-06-05T16:46:52Z

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
> James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> writes:
>> I don't participate too much here, but I've never see a group implement
>> a code of conduct go well.

There’s also a lot of evidence to the contrary, where groups have
successfully implemented CoCs as well by extension, the corporate
environment and policies and procedures organizations have put in
place to create safe working environments. To echo a point Peter G. made
upthread, yes, mistakes are made and yes nothing will be perfect, but the
main goal is to ensure that if someone is being harassed by a community
member, they have an appropriate avenue to safely report it and ensure
the CoC committee will review.

> Yeah, personally I'm a bit worried about this too.  The proposed CoC
> does contain provisions to try to prevent misusing it, but whether those
> are strong enough remains to be seen --- and it'll depend a good deal
> on the judgment of the committee members.  We have a provision in there
> for periodic review of the CoC, and it'll be important to adjust it if
> we see abuses.

If you read the reporting guidelines, it is requested that someone filing a
report provides as much evidence as possible, and that is a really
important provision, both for the person reporting and for the committee
to review and adjudicate fairly.

And having the independence and the check-and-balance with the core
committee is also key too, to ensure each report is given a fair, objective
review to the best of the abilities of each committee.

> In general, the PG community has a long track record of mostly civil
> interactions, so I'm optimistic that that will continue.  The CoC should
> only come into play in cases where people are not following community
> norms.  If we were trying to impose a CoC to improve a situation where
> not-so-civil interactions were common, I agree that it likely wouldn't
> work.

+1

Jonathan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-06-05T16:47:05Z

On June 5, 2018 12:36:37 PM EDT, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>On 06/05/2018 09:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> writes:
>>> I don't participate too much here, but I've never see a group
>implement
>>> a code of conduct go well.
>> 
>> Yeah, personally I'm a bit worried about this too.  The proposed CoC
>> does contain provisions to try to prevent misusing it, but whether
>those
>> are strong enough remains to be seen --- and it'll depend a good deal
>> on the judgment of the committee members.  We have a provision in
>there
>> for periodic review of the CoC, and it'll be important to adjust it
>if
>> we see abuses.
>
>A community that has an exceedingly reasonable and popular CoC is
>Ubuntu:
>
>https://www.ubuntu.com/community/code-of-conduct
>

We can go back and forth with examples and counter examples of CoC that have been abused. The point is largely that they're abused often enough that you felt the need to clarify you've found one that hasn't been.

Complete aside, and probably a CoC violation because it'll upset people. I wish this many people cared about having a proper bug tracker for this project and we spent this much time determining how to do that. My personal experience with the hackers and bugs lists are that things get lost and end up being incredibly difficult to find or reference. However, we have to spend our time being hip and adopting policies that really have no reason to exist as overt and probably even subtle, but persistent abuse will already be dealt with by moderators in their capacity as moderators.

Jim

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-06-05T16:51:03Z

> [T]he
main goal is to ensure that if someone is being harassed by a community
member, they have an appropriate avenue to safely report it and ensure
the CoC committee will review

To be honest, this is a bigger problem. Why would someone not feel comfortable contacting the core team? Why would they feel better contacting the CoC board who is probably mostly core team or otherwise self-selected community members who have a strong belief in the CoC (and I don't mean that kindly)?

Jim
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-06-05T16:54:00Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 6:21 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

> I also think that a CoC focuses on the wrong things. If someone is
> disruptive, they need to be told to leave, just like in every forum ever.
>
> We should focus on ensuring that the code and documentation is free from
> slurs and culturally specific idioms. We should hold gatekeepers
> accountable for making decisions based on technical merit and not the
> person who proposed an idea or submitted a patch.
>
> We can't control the behavior of the internet as a whole. We can control
> our codebase and our gatekeepers.
>

I think in our case those fears are overblown.

There is a very well-founded fear among a lot of people of ideological
litmus tests being imposed on economic commons.  The current impetus for a
code of conduct here followed one attempt at that on some other projects.
On my blog I have discussed these things.  One can find them there.  I
think a whole lot of us understand that at some point there will be an
attempt to use our code of conduct to that end.  This has been discussed
before and one of the key points is that not  having a code of conduct
doesn't really protect us because the MO in these cases has been "Look at
that extremely offensive viewpoint!  You should have a code of conduct we
can use to throw him out!"  So having a code of conduct doesn't hurt and it
may provide a bulwark against some of the larger efforts in this regard.
In essence often not having a code of conduct is an encouragement for
people to push a politically charged code of conduct.  Having a politically
neutral code of conduct at least suggests we have rejected the politically
charged ones.

We are an international and largely politically neutral project.  I doubt
that as a community we would have tolerated trying to harass, for example,
either side in the recent Irish referendum to stop using PostgreSQL if they
were, or that we would tolerate an effort to politically hijack the
community for culture war issues, or trying to drive people out for trying
to form viable third parties in the US political landscape.  An
international CoC committee is our best defense against an effort to co-opt
the community in the way you are worried about.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> — 2018-06-05T16:54:10Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Yeah, personally I'm a bit worried about this too.  The proposed CoC
> does contain provisions to try to prevent misusing it, but whether those
> are strong enough remains to be seen --- and it'll depend a good deal
> on the judgment of the committee members.  We have a provision in there
> for periodic review of the CoC, and it'll be important to adjust it if
> we see abuses.
>

Having the CoC link actually link to information about the Core Team, in
addition to simply using the term, would be good.  There is also no
description of how a complaint against a committee member would be resolved
(just that one should contact individual members instead of using the group
list) nor is there mention of whether the committee or individual core team
members should be addressed should the complaint be against a core team
member.

Related, there is no public mention of how a core team members' membership
could be revoked - just that invitations are done by existing members.

Tangential, are there plans to increase number of core team members.  IIRC
its actually decreased by one between the time of the first proposal of the
CoC and now.

In general, the PG community has a long track record of mostly civil
> interactions, so I'm optimistic that that will continue.

+1

As an outside observer I am a bit curious that the Core Team wouldn't be
able to handle accepting the, likely low volume, of complaints directly; is
the management of a committee necessary

?  It seems likely more time will be spent administering the annual member
selection process than the members will spend performing those duties.
Having an administrative aide seems worthwhile - which is basically where
things stand today and could be continued on with until such time as a
specific need for a committee is felt.

David J.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-05T16:55:16Z

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> writes:
> I also think that a CoC focuses on the wrong things. If someone is disruptive, they need to be told to leave, just like in every forum ever.

That's pretty much what the CoC *is*: it's just trying to set out an
agreed-on framework for exercising the power to ban somebody.  Up to now,
if someone was being disruptive enough that that would be a reasonable
thing to do, the decision would be taken by the core team, according to
no defined principles and with no mechanism for appeal --- nor any guards
against core abusing its power.  AFAIR, core has never actually done any
such thing, and I'd like to think that the CoC committee will never need
to ban anybody either.  But if it does come to that, we'll have a much
better governance mechanism in place for it.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2018-06-05T16:55:32Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:51 AM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:
> To be honest, this is a bigger problem. Why would someone not feel
> comfortable contacting the core team? Why would they feel better contacting
> the CoC board who is probably mostly core team or otherwise self-selected
> community members who have a strong belief in the CoC (and I don't mean that
> kindly)?

The CoC states that the committee's members cannot come from the core team.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> — 2018-06-05T17:00:08Z

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 9:51 AM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:
> 
> > [T]he
> main goal is to ensure that if someone is being harassed by a community
> member, they have an appropriate avenue to safely report it and ensure
> the CoC committee will review
> 
> To be honest, this is a bigger problem. Why would someone not feel comfortable contacting the core team? Why would they feel better contacting the CoC board who is probably mostly core team or otherwise self-selected community members who have a strong belief in the CoC (and I don't mean that kindly)?

The whole point of having a CoC is to advertise that we, as an organization, don't tolerate harassment and offensive behaviour. It also advertises that "we" will deal with it, if reported, and provides a clear, appropriate point of contact to do so. It also states roughly what process will be taken at that point.

Also, an alternative perspective, what makes you think every member of the core team would be comfortable being contacted? Handling allegations of, for example, drunken tech bros sexually harassing people isn't comfortable, is time consuming and does require a particular set of soft skills - skills that do not correlate with software architecture chops.

Cheers,
  Steve

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-06-05T17:01:55Z

I'm sorry for the double post.

> If you read the reporting guidelines, it is requested that someone filing a
report provides as much evidence as possible, and that is a really
important provision, both for the person reporting and for the committee
to review and adjudicate fairly.

What does fairly mean?

Let's role play. I'll be a homophobic person.

You've just submitted a proposal suggesting that we change master-master replication to be multi-partner replication. I've told you I don't like the wording because of it's implication of supporting homosexual marriage, which I believe to be a personal offense to me, my marriage, and my "deeply held religious beliefs". You tell me that's not your intent and that you do not plan to change your proposed wording. You continue to use the term in all correspondences on the list and I continually tell you that supporting gay marriage is offensive and that you need to not be so deeply offensive. I submit all our correspondences to the  CoC committee and complain that you're purposely using language that is extremely offensive.

What is a "fair" outcome? Should you be banned? Should you be forced to change the wording of your proposal that no one else has complained about and others support? What is a fair, just outcome?

Jim
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> — 2018-06-05T17:05:25Z

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:01 AM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry for the double post.
>
> > If you read the reporting guidelines, it is requested that someone
> filing a
> report provides as much evidence as possible, and that is a really
> important provision, both for the person reporting and for the committee
> to review and adjudicate fairly.
>
> What does fairly mean?
>
> Let's role play. I'll be a homophobic person.
>
> You've just submitted a proposal suggesting that we change master-master
> replication to be multi-partner replication. I've told you I don't like the
> wording because of it's implication of supporting homosexual marriage,
> which I believe to be a personal offense to me, my marriage, and my "deeply
> held religious beliefs". You tell me that's not your intent and that you do
> not plan to change your proposed wording. You continue to use the term in
> all correspondences on the list and I continually tell you that supporting
> gay marriage is offensive and that you need to not be so deeply offensive.
> I submit all our correspondences to the CoC committee and complain that
> you're purposely using language that is extremely offensive.
>
> What is a "fair" outcome? Should you be banned? Should you be forced to
> change the wording of your proposal that no one else has complained about
> and others support? What is a fair, just outcome?
>
> Jim



God I love you , Jim!! Again, just roleplaying of course. :-)

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-05T17:08:20Z

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> Tangential, are there plans to increase number of core team members.  IIRC
> its actually decreased by one between the time of the first proposal of the
> CoC and now.

We're thinking about it, but it's not something to be hasty over.

> As an outside observer I am a bit curious that the Core Team wouldn't be
> able to handle accepting the, likely low volume, of complaints directly; is
> the management of a committee necessary?

That's more or less how things have worked up to now, or really not
worked, because there have been hardly any incidents in which anyone
approached core for such a complaint.  I would say there are a number
of things wrong with it:

1. Nobody knows that they could approach core on such a matter;

2. Nobody knows exactly what sorts of matters core might be willing
to act on;

3. There's no appeal process, nor any clean way to deal with the
situation if the complaint is against a core member.  (Which is a
case I sure hope never happens, but we ought to design to handle it.)

So publishing a formal CoC at all is mainly meant to deal with weak
points 1 and 2, and then the details of the process are there to try
to fix point 3.

Yeah, managing the committee is a lot of overhead that in an ideal
world we wouldn't need, but I think we have to accept it to have a
process people will have confidence in.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-06-05T17:26:06Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 7:01 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry for the double post.
>
> > If you read the reporting guidelines, it is requested that someone
> filing a
> report provides as much evidence as possible, and that is a really
> important provision, both for the person reporting and for the committee
> to review and adjudicate fairly.
>
> What does fairly mean?
>
> Let's role play. I'll be a homophobic person.
>
> You've just submitted a proposal suggesting that we change master-master
> replication to be multi-partner replication. I've told you I don't like the
> wording because of it's implication of supporting homosexual marriage,
> which I believe to be a personal offense to me, my marriage, and my "deeply
> held religious beliefs". You tell me that's not your intent and that you do
> not plan to change your proposed wording. You continue to use the term in
> all correspondences on the list and I continually tell you that supporting
> gay marriage is offensive and that you need to not be so deeply offensive.
> I submit all our correspondences to the CoC committee and complain that
> you're purposely using language that is extremely offensive.
>
> What is a "fair" outcome? Should you be banned? Should you be forced to
> change the wording of your proposal that no one else has complained about
> and others support? What is a fair, just outcome?
>

I think the fundamental outcome is likely to be that people who cause
trouble are likely to get trouble.  This sort of case really doesn't worry
me.  I am sure whoever is stirring the pot will be asked at least to cease
doing so.

But let's look at all fairness in a more likely scenario where someone
involved in, say, Human Rights Campaign posts something arguing that
marriage is not a bond that binds parents to their children but something
that exists solely for the benefit of the spouses and a conservative from,
say, India, complains.  Do we ask the individual to change his or her
signature?

What happens if the signature proclaims that Tibet should be free and
Chinese folks on the list worry about ramifications for participating in
these cases?

But worse, what if by not taking sides, we say that this isn't big enough
for us to adjudicate and so the conservative from India puts up a quote on
his email signature citing Gandhi's view that accepting consent-based
morality to sexual contact leads to accepting homosexual contact, and this
leads to misery for everyone.  When challenged he points out it is just
social critique like the other signature.

Now what do we do?  Do we side with one or the other?  Or do we ban both or
refuse to get involved?  At that point there are no longer any good options
but I will state my preference would be to reiterate to both that we ought
to have a live-and-let-live culture and this applies to cultural
differences on concepts of gender and marriage.

This sort of thing will happen.  I have watched calls for pushing gay and
lesbian roles on television in the US lead to policies of censorship of
Western media in countries like Indonesia (where Glee among other shows are
now formally banned), and this is one issue which is incredibly divisive
throughout the world with a lot of people having very deep-seated feelings
on the issue, where one can expect small differences to lead to big
conflicts.  And I think we want to avoid wading into those conflicts.

>
> Jim
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-05T17:36:28Z

On 06/05/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

>     Let's role play. I'll be a homophobic person.
> 
>     You've just submitted a proposal suggesting that we change
>     master-master replication to be multi-partner replication. I've told
>     you I don't like the wording because of it's implication of
>     supporting homosexual marriage, which I believe to be a personal
>     offense to me, my marriage, and my "deeply held religious beliefs".
>     You tell me that's not your intent and that you do not plan to
>     change your proposed wording. You continue to use the term in all
>     correspondences on the list and I continually tell you that
>     supporting gay marriage is offensive and that you need to not be so
>     deeply offensive. I submit all our correspondences to the CoC
>     committee and complain that you're purposely using language that is
>     extremely offensive.
> 
>     What is a "fair" outcome? Should you be banned? Should you be forced
>     to change the wording of your proposal that no one else has
>     complained about and others support? What is a fair, just outcome?
> 
> 
> I think the fundamental outcome is likely to be that people who cause 
> trouble are likely to get trouble.  This sort of case really doesn't 
> worry me.  I am sure whoever is stirring the pot will be asked at least 
> to cease doing so.

Your example is flawed because:

Multi-Partner has nothing to do with sexuality unless you want to make 
the argument that your belief is that a relationship should be between 
one person and another and in this argument a man and a woman which has 
literally nothing to do with the word multi or partner in a technical 
context.

Your example would carry better wait if you used master-master 
replication to be man-man or woman-woman neither of which makes any 
sense in the context of replication.

Since man-man or woman-woman makes zero sense in the context of 
replication it would immediately be -1 from all the -hackers of any 
sense which for the most part is all of them.

In short the fundamental outcome is that the community wouldn't let it 
get that far. We have 20 years of results to show in that one.

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-06-05T17:44:05Z

> Your example is flawed because:
>
> Multi-Partner has nothing to do with sexuality unless you want to make the
> argument that your belief is that a relationship should be between one
> person and another and in this argument a man and a woman which has
> literally nothing to do with the word multi or partner in a technical
> context.
>
>
Gay couples often call their significant other their partner. It's not
uncommon, at least where I'm from. Partner can be a very politically
charged word because of this, especially outside of a strictly business
sense, e.g. LLP. Partner doesn't really have a "technical" meaning.

Does your insistence that my RPC isn't correct an attack on my RPC?


>
> In short the fundamental outcome is that the community wouldn't let it get
> that far. We have 20 years of results to show in that one.
>

So, you're saying we don't need a CoC because in 20 years you've never had
an issue? That doesn't seem like a good response.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-05T17:53:07Z

On 06/05/2018 10:44 AM, James Keener wrote:
> 
>     Your example is flawed because:
> 
>     Multi-Partner has nothing to do with sexuality unless you want to
>     make the argument that your belief is that a relationship should be
>     between one person and another and in this argument a man and a
>     woman which has literally nothing to do with the word multi or
>     partner in a technical context.
> 
> 
> Gay couples often call their significant other their partner.

Yes but the argument against the use of the word partner isn't 
technically relevant to the feature.

> So, you're saying we don't need a CoC because in 20 years you've never 
> had an issue? That doesn't seem like a good response.

No my response is that 20 years of community experience is that we as a 
community on public lists would not allow it to get that far because the 
original proposal or complaint wouldn't be technically relevant.

The CoC is going to be most relevant for:

1. Showing a clear understanding that not all people have a voice they 
are comfortable using

2. Showing a clear understanding that all people are equal in the policy 
of this community

3. That those who are subject to #1, they have a team to back them up or 
correct them should a problem arise.

Does the CoC help or harm me? No. You? Probably not.

I will reference what Jonathan Katz mentioned yesterday:

"I know it does make a difference to have a code of conduct in terms of
helping people to feel more welcome and knowing that there is an
avenue for them to voice feedback in the case of an unfortunate incident."

This is what the CoC is about, nothing more and nothing less. That is 
what we should be focusing on. To throw my own slogan on this bird:

People, Postgres, Data

JD
-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2018-06-05T17:55:51Z

Greetings,

* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@adjust.com>
> wrote:
> > If I may suggest:  The committee should be international as well and
> > include people from around the world.  The last thing we want is for it to
> > be dominated by people from one particular cultural viewpoint.
> 
> It will be. This is the PostgreSQL *global* development group and project,
> after all. Yes, there is definitely a slant in the project in general
> towards the US side, as is true in many other such projects, but in general
> we have decent coverage of other cultures and countries as well. We can't
> cover them all  on the committee (that would make for a gicantic
> committee), but we can cover it with people who are used to communicating
> and working with people from other areas as well, which makes for a better
> understanding.
> 
> It won't be perfect in the first attempt, of course, but that one is
> covered.

This drives to a point which I was thinking about also- what is needed
on the committee are people who are worldly to the point of
understanding that there are different cultures and viewpoints, and
knowing when and how to ask during an investigation to get an
understanding of if the issue is one of cultural differences (leading
potentially to education and not to reprimand, as discussed in the CoC),
something else, or perhaps both.

The CoC committee doesn't need to be comprimised of individuals from
every culture to which the community extends, as that quickly becomes
untenable.

I'm confident that the Core team will work to ensure that the initial
committee is comprised of such individuals and that both Core and the
subsequent CoC committees will work to maintain that.

Thanks!

Stephen

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2018-06-05T18:03:38Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> So publishing a formal CoC at all is mainly meant to deal with weak
> points 1 and 2, and then the details of the process are there to try
> to fix point 3.
>
> Yeah, managing the committee is a lot of overhead that in an ideal
> world we wouldn't need, but I think we have to accept it to have a
> process people will have confidence in.

It's worth pointing out that the community has grown considerably in
the last ten years. I assume that adding a bit of process to deal with
these kinds of disputes is related to that.

We have a pretty good track record through totally informal standards
for behavior. Setting a good example is absolutely essential. While
that's still the most important thing, it doesn't seem particularly
scalable on its own.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> — 2018-06-05T18:39:36Z

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 08:49, Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> wrote:
> I thought the same thing as a member of the Django community. It adopted a CoC that I vocally warned was dangerous and far more likely to be abused than provide any benefit. I was shocked when the very first time it was ever invoked it was by one of the founders of the project (whom I previously personally respected) and it was absolutely used in the manner that I had feared which was to shut someone up whose opinion he did not like rather than any legitimate concern.

Speaking as someone who has served on the board of the Django Software Foundation:

1. The Django Code of Conduct is considered a success and a valuable asset to the growth and health of the community.
2. Others involved in the event mentioned above would not describe it in the same terms

--
-- Christophe Pettus
   xof@thebuild.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-06-05T18:42:12Z

I accidentally didn't send this to the whole list.  I'll let Chris resend
his response if he'd like.

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:58 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

> I think the fundamental outcome is likely to be that people who cause
>> trouble are likely to get trouble.  This sort of case really doesn't worry
>> me.  I am sure whoever is stirring the pot will be asked at least to cease
>> doing so.
>>
>>
> Are you implying that either of my RPCs are causing "trouble" for either
> advancing a technical proposal, not wanting to change wording they feel is
> clear and non-political, or for voicing their concerns that a proposal is
> highly offensive?
>
> The whole point of the CoC is that people shouldn't feel like they're
> causing "trouble" if they feel like they're being picked on or offended or
> marginalized. That's specifically why people want them: they want to know,
> or at least feel like, they'll be taken seriously if someone is
> legitimately picking on them or marginalizing them.
>
> I complain a lot about the CoC, but I agree with Tom (I think it was) in
> saying that there does need to be some written framework for how disputes
> are handled by the organization. I just feel that CoC has, unfortunately,
> become a politically charged term that often find themselves talking about
> politically charged subjects instead of saying you should focus on
> technical topics and not on the person when discussing a technical topic
> and how a dispute will be handled if someone is misbehaving. I've seen them
> used as weapons in real life and have watch disputes play out over the
> internet, e.g. the famous push for opal to adop the Contributor Covenent by
> someone not affiliated with the project and who (potentially/allegedly)
> misunderstood a partial conversation they heard. (
> https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941).
>
> The question is: how can you (honestly) make people feel like we'll take
> complaints seriously, while also not allowing for the politics that I've
> seen surround recent incarnations of Codes of Conduct?
>
> Jim
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-06-05T18:53:37Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:42 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

> I accidentally didn't send this to the whole list.  I'll let Chris resend
> his response if he'd like.
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:58 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the fundamental outcome is likely to be that people who cause
>>> trouble are likely to get trouble.  This sort of case really doesn't worry
>>> me.  I am sure whoever is stirring the pot will be asked at least to cease
>>> doing so.
>>>
>>>
>> Are you implying that either of my RPCs are causing "trouble" for either
>> advancing a technical proposal, not wanting to change wording they feel is
>> clear and non-political, or for voicing their concerns that a proposal is
>> highly offensive?
>>
>
There's an old Icelandic mythic poem "Lokasenna" which describes what I
have seen happening very well.  If you come to the feast to pick fights,
fights is what one will get.

>
>> The whole point of the CoC is that people shouldn't feel like they're
>> causing "trouble" if they feel like they're being picked on or offended or
>> marginalized. That's specifically why people want them: they want to know,
>> or at least feel like, they'll be taken seriously if someone is
>> legitimately picking on them or marginalizing them.
>>
>> I complain a lot about the CoC, but I agree with Tom (I think it was) in
>> saying that there does need to be some written framework for how disputes
>> are handled by the organization. I just feel that CoC has, unfortunately,
>> become a politically charged term that often find themselves talking about
>> politically charged subjects instead of saying you should focus on
>> technical topics and not on the person when discussing a technical topic
>> and how a dispute will be handled if someone is misbehaving. I've seen them
>> used as weapons in real life and have watch disputes play out over the
>> internet, e.g. the famous push for opal to adop the Contributor Covenent by
>> someone not affiliated with the project and who (potentially/allegedly)
>> misunderstood a partial conversation they heard. (
>> https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941).
>>
>> The question is: how can you (honestly) make people feel like we'll take
>> complaints seriously, while also not allowing for the politics that I've
>> seen surround recent incarnations of Codes of Conduct?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>
At the end I see signals in the current CoC that make me hopeful.  Phrases
like "common interest" occur.  There are some minor changes I think would
help avoid problems.  But they aren't big deals.  The big thing is I trust
our community not to exclude people based, for example, on political or
cultural perspectives and thats really important.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> — 2018-06-05T19:06:24Z

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:

> On 06/05/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>     Let's role play. I'll be a homophobic person.
>>
>>     You've just submitted a proposal suggesting that we change
>>     master-master replication to be multi-partner replication. I've told
>>     you I don't like the wording because of it's implication of
>>     supporting homosexual marriage, which I believe to be a personal
>>     offense to me, my marriage, and my "deeply held religious beliefs".
>>     You tell me that's not your intent and that you do not plan to
>>     change your proposed wording. You continue to use the term in all
>>     correspondences on the list and I continually tell you that
>>     supporting gay marriage is offensive and that you need to not be so
>>     deeply offensive. I submit all our correspondences to the CoC
>>     committee and complain that you're purposely using language that is
>>     extremely offensive.
>>
>>     What is a "fair" outcome? Should you be banned? Should you be forced
>>     to change the wording of your proposal that no one else has
>>     complained about and others support? What is a fair, just outcome?
>>
>>
>> I think the fundamental outcome is likely to be that people who cause
>> trouble are likely to get trouble.  This sort of case really doesn't worry
>> me.  I am sure whoever is stirring the pot will be asked at least to cease
>> doing so.
>>
>
> Your example is flawed because:
>
> Multi-Partner has nothing to do with sexuality unless you want to make the
> argument that your belief is that a relationship should be between one
> person and another and in this argument a man and a woman which has
> literally nothing to do with the word multi or partner in a technical
> context.
>
> Your example would carry better wait if you used master-master replication
> to be man-man or woman-woman neither of which makes any sense in the
> context of replication.
>
> Since man-man or woman-woman makes zero sense in the context of
> replication it would immediately be -1 from all the -hackers of any sense
> which for the most part is all of them.
>
> In short the fundamental outcome is that the community wouldn't let it get
> that far. We have 20 years of results to show in that one.
>
>

Doesn't that 20 years of results pretty clearly demonstrate that this
community does not gain an advantage for adopting a CoC?

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> — 2018-06-05T19:12:08Z

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 12:06, Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> wrote:
> Doesn't that 20 years of results pretty clearly demonstrate that this community does not gain an advantage for adopting a CoC?

Not at all.  The need for a CoC is not theoretical.  Real people, recently, have left the community due to harassment, and there was no system within the community to report and deal with that harassment.

What we do have is 20 years of people demonstrating reasonable good judgment, which we can conclude will apply to a CoC committee as well.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
   xof@thebuild.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-05T19:16:07Z

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:42 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:
>> The question is: how can you (honestly) make people feel like we'll take
>> complaints seriously, while also not allowing for the politics that I've
>> seen surround recent incarnations of Codes of Conduct?

> At the end I see signals in the current CoC that make me hopeful.  Phrases
> like "common interest" occur.  There are some minor changes I think would
> help avoid problems.  But they aren't big deals.  The big thing is I trust
> our community not to exclude people based, for example, on political or
> cultural perspectives and thats really important.

The one thing that gives me any hope of success is that this has
historically been an apolitical community, so that these sorts of problems
don't naturally arise.  As long as it stays that way, I think a CoC can
work to smooth out edge-case situations.  I tend to agree that a CoC
could not fix tensions in a community that naturally needs to deal with
political or religious issues.  If someone tries to inflame political or
religious feelings among the PG community, I hope we have the sense to
walk away.  (Maybe we could put something in the CoC about that, but
I have the sense that it'd do more harm than good.)

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> — 2018-06-05T19:20:45Z

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:

>
> > On Jun 5, 2018, at 12:06, Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com>
> wrote:
> > Doesn't that 20 years of results pretty clearly demonstrate that this
> community does not gain an advantage for adopting a CoC?
>
> Not at all.  The need for a CoC is not theoretical.  Real people,
> recently, have left the community due to harassment, and there was no
> system within the community to report and deal with that harassment.
>

I keep hearing this claim. I've followed up and tried to verify them. Sorry
but "trust me" doesn't cut it here any more than "trust me this will make
Postgres go faster" would on a code change. What's the context for this?
What evidence do we have that indicates this CoC would have likely resulted
in a different outcome? Without that then your claim does not even rise up
to the standard of theoretical. Frankly this claim does not seem very
plausible to me at all. Let's try to keep our standards here. I'm not
trying to harp on you personally, it's just that you're the unlucky
umpteenth time I've seen this claim made with zero satisfaction.

 -- Ben Scherrey

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2018-06-05T20:07:14Z

Greetings,

* Benjamin Scherrey (scherrey@proteus-tech.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
> > Not at all.  The need for a CoC is not theoretical.  Real people,
> > recently, have left the community due to harassment, and there was no
> > system within the community to report and deal with that harassment.
> 
> I keep hearing this claim. I've followed up and tried to verify them. Sorry
> but "trust me" doesn't cut it here any more than "trust me this will make
> Postgres go faster" would on a code change. What's the context for this?
> What evidence do we have that indicates this CoC would have likely resulted
> in a different outcome? Without that then your claim does not even rise up
> to the standard of theoretical. Frankly this claim does not seem very
> plausible to me at all. Let's try to keep our standards here. I'm not
> trying to harp on you personally, it's just that you're the unlucky
> umpteenth time I've seen this claim made with zero satisfaction.

While I can't say for sure, I feel reasonably confident that the level
of proof you're asking for here isn't going to be forthcoming as it's a
matter that Core has decided is best kept private, not unlike what we
would expect the CoC Committee to do in instances where appropriate,
possibly at the request and/or agreement of the individual or
individuals involved.

So while I can understand why you're asking, it's not particularly
useful to continue to do so.  Specific suggestions about how to change
the proposed CoC would be useful, but the ongoing discussion about if
one is needed is not.

Thanks!

Stephen

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2018-06-05T20:17:42Z

Hi,

On 2018-06-06 02:20:45 +0700, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > > On Jun 5, 2018, at 12:06, Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Doesn't that 20 years of results pretty clearly demonstrate that this
> > community does not gain an advantage for adopting a CoC?
> >
> > Not at all.  The need for a CoC is not theoretical.  Real people,
> > recently, have left the community due to harassment, and there was no
> > system within the community to report and deal with that harassment.
> >
> 
> I keep hearing this claim. I've followed up and tried to verify them.

What would satisfy you? Dishing out all the details for everyone to see?
That'd both personally effect the victim and the alleged perpetrator,
and have potential legal implications.  At some point you're going to
have to trust that community stewards are working in good faith (which
doesn't imply agreeing on everything) and not trying to just screw with
you for the sake of it.

> Sorry but "trust me" doesn't cut it here any more than "trust me this
> will make Postgres go faster" would on a code change.

You do trust us to run code on your systems without having read every
line.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> — 2018-06-05T20:22:39Z

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 12:20, Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> wrote:
> I'm not trying to harp on you personally, it's just that you're the unlucky umpteenth time I've seen this claim made with zero satisfaction.

Given that we are talking about human beings here, who (unlike code commits) have careers and a reasonable expectation of privacy, it's possible that the reason you have heard this upteen times is that there are issues in the community that you are not aware of.  I would say that it more likely that bad faith and conniving on the part of upteen people.

--
-- Christophe Pettus
   xof@thebuild.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2018-06-05T20:25:57Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Benjamin Scherrey
<scherrey@proteus-tech.com> wrote:
> I keep hearing this claim. I've followed up and tried to verify them. Sorry
> but "trust me" doesn't cut it here any more than "trust me this will make
> Postgres go faster" would on a code change. What's the context for this?
> What evidence do we have that indicates this CoC would have likely resulted
> in a different outcome? Without that then your claim does not even rise up
> to the standard of theoretical. Frankly this claim does not seem very
> plausible to me at all. Let's try to keep our standards here.

Whose standards are these? By my count, the majority of e-mails you've
ever sent to a PostgreSQL mailing list have been sent in the last 2
days, to this code of conduct thread.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-05T20:27:07Z

On 06/05/2018 12:12 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 5, 2018, at 12:06, Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> wrote:
>> Doesn't that 20 years of results pretty clearly demonstrate that this community does not gain an advantage for adopting a CoC?
> 
> Not at all.  The need for a CoC is not theoretical.  Real people, recently, have left the community due to harassment, and there was no system within the community to report and deal with that harassment.
> 
> What we do have is 20 years of people demonstrating reasonable good judgment, which we can conclude will apply to a CoC committee as well.

+1

jD

> --
> -- Christophe Pettus
>     xof@thebuild.com
> 
> 


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jonathan Katz <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> — 2018-06-05T20:30:10Z

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 3:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
> Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:42 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:
>>> The question is: how can you (honestly) make people feel like we'll take
>>> complaints seriously, while also not allowing for the politics that I've
>>> seen surround recent incarnations of Codes of Conduct?
> 
>> At the end I see signals in the current CoC that make me hopeful.  Phrases
>> like "common interest" occur.  There are some minor changes I think would
>> help avoid problems.  But they aren't big deals.  The big thing is I trust
>> our community not to exclude people based, for example, on political or
>> cultural perspectives and thats really important.
> 
> The one thing that gives me any hope of success is that this has
> historically been an apolitical community, so that these sorts of problems
> don't naturally arise.  As long as it stays that way, I think a CoC can
> work to smooth out edge-case situations.  I tend to agree that a CoC
> could not fix tensions in a community that naturally needs to deal with
> political or religious issues.  If someone tries to inflame political or
> religious feelings among the PG community, I hope we have the sense to
> walk away.  (Maybe we could put something in the CoC about that, but
> I have the sense that it'd do more harm than good.)

I would say that the ethos of the community cannot be codified, but is
something the community leaders must continue to exemplify.

Jonathan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Sven R. Kunze <srkunze@mail.de> — 2018-06-05T21:06:48Z

Hi PostgreSQL Community,

some points I like to make mainly because of observations of how other 
open source projects handle this topic:

1) CoC might result in developers leaving projects
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122922.html

2) CoC might result in not so equal peers and friends, might result in a 
committee which feels above their peers, and might promote conceit and 
denunciation. That is why some projects choose not to have one
https://freie-software.org/verein/coc.html - they say: "we're friends - 
that's our CoC, more would be harmful" [1]

3) https://shiromarieke.github.io/coc.html explains why there's no safe 
space and CoC won't change that (she's a queer woman who experienced 
harassment and sexual assault)

In related discussions, people recurringly ask not to establish a 
secondary judicial system but to use the already existing ones.

I hope these points can influence what is in the CoC or whether there 
will a CoC at all.
Personally, I find 2) a very good case against CoC (although I like the 
"we're friends - that's our CoC, more would be harmful").

Best,
Sven

On 03.06.2018 20:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
> the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
> to draft a CoC [1].  That process has taken far longer than expected,
> but the committee has not been idle.  They worked through many comments
> and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
> of the core team.  This final(?) draft can be found at
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

[1] Appendix - Google translation of the CoC of Freie Software:

Code of Conduct
Don't have it. Don't want to have.

That's the short version. The long version follows.

A "Code of Conduct" is a code of conduct in the sense of a set of norms 
intended to determine the behavior of addressees of the Code.

Thoughts on the normalization of the self-evident
If one reads current, relevant regulations, one finds that normal 
self-evident behaviors are normalized there. What is required there is 
the attitude and behavior of a reasonably reasonable, reasonably well 
behaved person.

That seems remarkable. Rules are set up when there is a risk that they 
will be broken. You should act on the addressee from the outside, 
because you fear that he will not behave properly without this impact.

Such a framework thus says something about the constitution of the 
community or society to which the rules apply. In this case, a 
reasonable behavior is obviously not (of course) obvious.

Among friends, the behaviors and attitudes described in the relevant 
regulations, such as respect, attention and helpfulness, 
non-discrimination, the will to cooperate, rule-free intercourse, etc., 
are self-evident. Friends behave as each other as required in these 
rules. At least most. If not always.

The biggest lump in the whole country ...
The relevant regulations then provide for the appointment of persons or 
bodies to whom, if one believes the rules have been violated, one can 
turn to oneself.

In most cases such a complaint is permissible not only in case of 
personal concern, but also if one thinks that the rules have been 
violated to the detriment of one or the other. Experience teaches that 
this often challenges behaviors that can kill any friendship. Knowing 
better and being feeling informers usually have only like-minded people 
as social contact.

But we do not want to promote either conceit or denunciation.

If someone does not behave as it is self-evident, then there are 
reasons. These can be different types. A clear word among friends in 
private or in a small circle is then helpful - for the "victim", as well 
as for the "perpetrator". The latter deserves respect, 
non-discrimination, attention, helpfulness and understanding. The latter 
should actually be self-evident, but it is often not the case when 
executing a Code of Conduct.

Nor is a rule-free, friendly dealing with the accused possible. The 
roles of the judge and a friend are incompatible. Friends meet at eye 
level; the judge has power and authority to exercise, even if he acquits.

Penalties among friends?
Finally, a Code of Conduct will include a sanctioning apparatus to 
sanction undesirable behavior. Deliberate addition of evils 
(punishments) among friends is a contradiction in terms.

 From this, it can be concluded that the moment a Code of Conduct takes 
effect, the friendship is already over. When we get to that point, we 
should dissolve our club, because then we failed - all together.

Therefore, we do not need and do not want a code of conduct in the sense 
of a set of rules.

Resistance to unreasonableness
Sometimes, in recent times, the demand for a code of conduct in the form 
of a corresponding set of rules is unfortunately linked with a 
(financial) aid offer. Help under such a condition we refuse.

Freedom, as we want to understand and live it, occasionally requires 
resistance to the imposition of doing something unreasonable and harmful.

Respectful help and patronage are incompatible. Freedom requires and 
requires maturity. We can not propagate freedom and accept paternalism.

We are friends. That is already in the name of our association. This is 
our "Code of Conduct". That is enough. More would be harmful.

RE: Code of Conduct plan

Ozz Nixon <ozznixon@gmail.com> — 2018-06-05T21:34:39Z

Sorry...

> 1) CoC might result in developers leaving projects


	I know this on going regurgitation is going to cause my team to leave the project, right around 100 posts on this off topic topic.... it was bad enough when the original idea came up (2 years ago I think). It used to be exciting to sit back and review the day or weeks posts... not much anymore.

Regards,
Ozz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2018-06-05T22:20:15Z

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Sven R. Kunze <srkunze@mail.de> wrote:
> 1) CoC might result in developers leaving projects
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122922.html

This guy left LLVM for several reasons. The pertinent reason for us
was that he had to agree to a code of conduct in order to attend
conferences, which he found to be unacceptable. He did not have to
agree that the idea of a code of conduct was a good one, though. It
would have been perfectly possible for him to be opposed in principle
to the idea of a CoC, while also formally agreeing to it and attending
those conferences. I gather that his objections were around questions
of unintended consequences, the role of a certain authority to assess
violations of the CoC, and so on (I surmise that he was not actually
opposed to or constrained by any of the specific rules around content
in technical presentations and so on).

I for one accept that these may have been reasonable concerns, even
though I don't really agree, since the LLVM CoC seems quite
reasonable. Anybody that participates in an open source community soon
learns that their opinion on almost any matter may not be the one that
prevails. There are often differences of opinion on -hackers that seem
to fundamentally be down to a difference in values. We still manage to
make it work, somehow.

> 2) CoC might result in not so equal peers and friends, might result in a
> committee which feels above their peers, and might promote conceit and
> denunciation.

I think that having a code of conduct is better than not having one,
and I think that the one that we came up with is appropriate and
proportionate. We could speculate all day about specific unintended
consequences that may or may not follow. That doesn't seem very
constructive, though. Besides, the time for that has passed.

> In related discussions, people recurringly ask not to establish a secondary
> judicial system but to use the already existing ones.

I don't follow. Practically any organized group has rules around
conduct, with varying degrees of formality, means of enforcement, etc.
Naturally, the rules across disparate groups vary widely for all kinds
of reasons. Formalizing and being more transparent about how this
works seems like the opposite of paternalism to me.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> — 2018-06-05T22:26:34Z

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 15:20, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> I don't follow. Practically any organized group has rules around
> conduct, with varying degrees of formality, means of enforcement, etc.

I believe the objection is to setting up a separate CoC committee, rather than using the core team as the enforcement mechanism.

This is more important than may be obvious.  Having a separation of the CoC committee and the organization that sets up and supervises the CoC committee is very important to prevent the perception, or the fact, that the CoC enforcement mechanism is a Star Chamber that is answerable only to itself.  It also allows for an appeal mechanism.

--
-- Christophe Pettus
   xof@thebuild.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> — 2018-06-05T23:37:05Z

On 5 June 2018 at 17:34, Ozz Nixon <ozznixon@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry...
>
> > 1) CoC might result in developers leaving projects
>
>
>         I know this on going regurgitation is going to cause my team to
> leave the project, right around 100 posts on this off topic topic.... it
> was bad enough when the original idea came up (2 years ago I think). It
> used to be exciting to sit back and review the day or weeks posts... not
> much anymore.
>

With all due respect, it is completely unreasonable to quit just because
there has been some discussion of the rules for co-existing within the
project. The intent of codes of conduct is usually supposed to be to make
it clear that bullying and harassment are not permitted, something that is
not always clear to everybody. That doesn't mean that any particular
position on them is required, only that discussion of them is definitely
*not* off topic. In any event, if you aren't interested in a thread, you
can easily mute it. Personally, I have about 95% of pgsql-hackers muted,
because I simply don't have time to be interested in every topic that is
discussed, and I suspect many subscribers are similar. If somebody is so
sensitive to even being aware of a discussion of the issue that they feel
they have to leave, then I would expect them to leave at some point anyway
due to becoming offended by some trivial matter that nobody else would even
notice.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-05T23:41:47Z

Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
>> Not at all.  The need for a CoC is not theoretical.  Real people,
>> recently, have left the community due to harassment, and there was no
>> system within the community to report and deal with that harassment.

> I keep hearing this claim. I've followed up and tried to verify them. Sorry
> but "trust me" doesn't cut it here any more than "trust me this will make
> Postgres go faster" would on a code change. What's the context for this?

You want us to name names?  I've tried to leave specific peoples' names
out of this; I don't think it would be helpful to them to dredge up old
wounds.  And I'm quite sure they wouldn't care to be contacted by
somebody trying to "verify" things.

> What evidence do we have that indicates this CoC would have likely resulted
> in a different outcome?

We have none, sure.  But what *can* be confidently asserted is that doing
nothing will result in no improvement.  It'll also create the perception
that we're actively uninterested in improving the situation, thus driving
away people who might otherwise have joined the community.

I'm getting a little tired of people raising hypothetical harms and
ignoring the real harms that we're hoping to fix.  Yes, this is an
experiment and it may not work, but we can't find out without trying.
If it turns out to be a net loss, we'll modify it or abandon it.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2018-06-05T23:51:19Z

On 06/05/2018 04:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
>>> Not at all.  The need for a CoC is not theoretical.  Real people,
>>> recently, have left the community due to harassment, and there was no
>>> system within the community to report and deal with that harassment.
> 
>> I keep hearing this claim. I've followed up and tried to verify them. Sorry
>> but "trust me" doesn't cut it here any more than "trust me this will make
>> Postgres go faster" would on a code change. What's the context for this?
> 
> You want us to name names?  I've tried to leave specific peoples' names
> out of this; I don't think it would be helpful to them to dredge up old
> wounds.  And I'm quite sure they wouldn't care to be contacted by
> somebody trying to "verify" things.
> 
>> What evidence do we have that indicates this CoC would have likely resulted
>> in a different outcome?
> 
> We have none, sure.  But what *can* be confidently asserted is that doing
> nothing will result in no improvement.  It'll also create the perception
> that we're actively uninterested in improving the situation, thus driving
> away people who might otherwise have joined the community.
> 
> I'm getting a little tired of people raising hypothetical harms and
> ignoring the real harms that we're hoping to fix.  Yes, this is an
> experiment and it may not work, but we can't find out without trying.
> If it turns out to be a net loss, we'll modify it or abandon it.

Good to hear this is considered an experiment.

To that end will there be quarterly/yearly reports, suitably anonymized, 
that spell out the activity that took place with reference to the CoC?


> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> 


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jan Claeys <lists@janc.be> — 2018-06-06T00:07:06Z

On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 16:45 +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> If I may suggest:  The committee should be international as well 
> and include people from around the world.  The last thing we want is
> for it to be dominated by people from one particular cultural
> viewpoint.

Being international/intercultural certainly has some value, but I think
it's at least as useful to have people with different competencies and
professional backgrounds.

For example: having some people who have a background in something like
psychology, sociology, education, law, human resources, marketing, etc.
(in addition to the likely much easier to find developers, DBAs and IT
managers) would be valuable too.

-- 
Jan Claeys

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2018-06-06T00:12:24Z

On 06/05/2018 05:07 PM, Jan Claeys wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 16:45 +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
>> If I may suggest:  The committee should be international as well
>> and include people from around the world.  The last thing we want is
>> for it to be dominated by people from one particular cultural
>> viewpoint.
> 
> Being international/intercultural certainly has some value, but I think
> it's at least as useful to have people with different competencies and
> professional backgrounds.
> 
> For example: having some people who have a background in something like
> psychology, sociology, education, law, human resources, marketing, etc.
> (in addition to the likely much easier to find developers, DBAs and IT
> managers) would be valuable too.

Oh, please no that would be a trip down the rabbit hole.

> 
> 


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> — 2018-06-06T00:15:53Z

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 17:07, Jan Claeys <lists@janc.be> wrote:
> 
> For example: having some people who have a background in something like
> psychology, sociology, education, law, human resources, marketing, etc.
> (in addition to the likely much easier to find developers, DBAs and IT
> managers) would be valuable too.

While it's good for the CoC committee to reach out for professional expertise if they need it, it should be on an engagement basis (if the CoC committee needs a lawyer, they find and retain a lawyer).  The damage that someone smart who thinks they know another profession can do is substantial.

--
-- Christophe Pettus
   xof@thebuild.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-06T00:38:41Z

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> writes:
> On 06/05/2018 05:07 PM, Jan Claeys wrote:
>> Being international/intercultural certainly has some value, but I think
>> it's at least as useful to have people with different competencies and
>> professional backgrounds.
>> For example: having some people who have a background in something like
>> psychology, sociology, education, law, human resources, marketing, etc.
>> (in addition to the likely much easier to find developers, DBAs and IT
>> managers) would be valuable too.

> Oh, please no that would be a trip down the rabbit hole.

Yeah.  For my own 2 cents, it's important that the committee members
be well known and trusted by the community-at-large; otherwise people
will be afraid to submit reports, making all this work pointless.
Combining that with the requirement for diversity is already going to
make it a difficult exercise to assemble a perfect team.  And then
there's the matter of whether people want to serve at all --- this is
likely to be a pretty thankless and unpleasant task, and one requiring
the sort of soft skills that tend not to be in abundance in a collection
of computer geeks ;-).  So I suspect that the pool of potential members
is not really very large.  Plus, since we put a time limit on how long
people can serve, we're going to need a fresh set of faces every couple
years.  So we shouldn't fool ourselves about how much we're going to be
able to ask in terms of additional qualifications.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-06T01:49:40Z

On 06/05/2018 04:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
>>> Not at all.  The need for a CoC is not theoretical.  Real people,
>>> recently, have left the community due to harassment, and there was no
>>> system within the community to report and deal with that harassment.
> 
>> I keep hearing this claim. I've followed up and tried to verify them. Sorry
>> but "trust me" doesn't cut it here any more than "trust me this will make
>> Postgres go faster" would on a code change. What's the context for this?
> 
> You want us to name names?  I've tried to leave specific peoples' names
> out of this; I don't think it would be helpful to them to dredge up old
> wounds.  And I'm quite sure they wouldn't care to be contacted by
> somebody trying to "verify" things.

+1, this is ridiculous.

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dennis Gearon <gearond@sbcglobal.net> — 2018-06-06T02:20:11Z

I have always been impressed with the core team's and posters' professionalism on this forum. I think the subject matter is vastly responsible for that, actuall and a natural filter for the people and the actual posts. But I also give this compliment  to all of you as individuals.
Apparently we are OPPOSITE of most of the world: There is more trouble(at conferences) in person than anonymously online!
Overall, in the years I have been active or lurking, I have seen plenty of room for people to take their own ideas and turn them into projects based on or to help postgresql ( and be responsible for them and their own community). I feel that is a great way to give all ideas and people a chance to contribute and be expressed. 
The CoC has not been needed, but this group is still growing after all these years. Better to have it before it's needed. Just glad to be part of a bunch of people where it HASN'T been needed, and let's all keep using and building this wonderful contribution to the world called 'Postgres'

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 

  On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Ron<ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:   On 06/03/2018 04:54 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
>> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community...
>>
>> We are now asking for a final round of community comments...
>
> I really like that this was included: "Any allegations that prove not to 
> be substantiated...will be viewed as a serious community offense and a 
> violation of this Code of Conduct."
>
> Good attempt to prevent the CoC being used as vindictive weaponry.

But a futile attempt: "A lie can travel half way around the world while the 
truth is putting on its shoes."

-- 
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-06T03:55:06Z

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> writes:
> On 06/05/2018 04:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm getting a little tired of people raising hypothetical harms and
>> ignoring the real harms that we're hoping to fix.  Yes, this is an
>> experiment and it may not work, but we can't find out without trying.
>> If it turns out to be a net loss, we'll modify it or abandon it.

> Good to hear this is considered an experiment.

> To that end will there be quarterly/yearly reports, suitably anonymized, 
> that spell out the activity that took place with reference to the CoC?

That seems like a good idea from here.  I don't know exactly how much
can be reported without risking privacy issues, but surely we could at
least provide the number of incidents and how they were resolved.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-06-06T05:27:40Z

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:07 AM, Jan Claeys <lists@janc.be> wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 16:45 +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> > If I may suggest:  The committee should be international as well
> > and include people from around the world.  The last thing we want is
> > for it to be dominated by people from one particular cultural
> > viewpoint.
>
> Being international/intercultural certainly has some value, but I think
> it's at least as useful to have people with different competencies and
> professional backgrounds.
>
> For example: having some people who have a background in something like
> psychology, sociology, education, law, human resources, marketing, etc.
> (in addition to the likely much easier to find developers, DBAs and IT
> managers) would be valuable too.
>

Besides what the others have said I don't think this would help.

The real fear here is the code of conduct being co-opted as a weapon of
world-wide culture war and that's what is driving a lot of the resistance
here.  This is particularly an American problem here and it causes  a lot
of resistance among people who were, until the second world war, subject to
some pretty serious problems by colonial powers.

Putting a bunch of American lawyers, psychologists, sociologists, marketers
etc on the board in the name of diversity would do way more harm than good.

>
>
> --
> Jan Claeys
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-06T15:34:23Z

On 06/05/2018 08:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> writes:
>> On 06/05/2018 04:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm getting a little tired of people raising hypothetical harms and
>>> ignoring the real harms that we're hoping to fix.  Yes, this is an
>>> experiment and it may not work, but we can't find out without trying.
>>> If it turns out to be a net loss, we'll modify it or abandon it.
> 
>> Good to hear this is considered an experiment.
> 
>> To that end will there be quarterly/yearly reports, suitably anonymized,
>> that spell out the activity that took place with reference to the CoC?
> 
> That seems like a good idea from here.  I don't know exactly how much
> can be reported without risking privacy issues, but surely we could at
> least provide the number of incidents and how they were resolved.

Yeah I like it too. We don't have to give out any confidential 
information but it adds to the transparency and allows the community as 
a whole to see that.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com> — 2018-06-06T17:39:36Z

## note: these are my personal opinions and views

On 6/3/18 11:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
> Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only).
> If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to
> coc@postgresql.org.

This email thread is so long that it's easy to spend more time on the
emails than the CoC itself!

My main feedback on the CoC is that it doesn't really say anything about
what to do if the complaint is against a core team member. This was
mentioned elsewhere in the email thread and I'm a bit surprised there's
nothing explicit in the CoC. If someone feels they have been treated in
a grossly inappropriate manner by a core team member, is it worthwhile
to report this? I think they'd want to know a little more about what the
process will be for that special case.

I haven't reviewed CoC's from other open source projects recently, but
sexual harassment policies at non-technical organizations where I
volunteer do explicitly cover the case of complaints against leaders. So
maybe it's a gap worth closing.

The sorts of issues that would be addressed here certainly are
complicated. I remember not too long ago when Brendan Eich was pressured
to resign as CEO of Mozilla (after only 11 days iirc) because he had a
particular political view unrelated to technology. I also think there
might be some merit to Lutz Horn's point about western bias in CoCs; we
should note concerns about propagating those values. (This isn't new;
e.g. Pope Francis called it ideological colonization in the news.) The
Mozilla case is not directly related to a CoC but it's still interesting
as it touches on how complicated these conversations can become.

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-deserve-to-be-removed-from-his-position-due-to-his-support-for-proposition-8/

Overall, having a CoC seems to me like a good thing to do. My
interactions with leaders in the PostgreSQL have been positive and it
feels like they will be good stewards of a CoC. I'm looking forward to
seeing one adopted.

-Jeremy

## note: these are my personal opinions and views

--
Jeremy Schneider
Database Engineer
Amazon Web Services

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-06T18:09:22Z

Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com> writes:
> My main feedback on the CoC is that it doesn't really say anything about
> what to do if the complaint is against a core team member. This was
> mentioned elsewhere in the email thread and I'm a bit surprised there's
> nothing explicit in the CoC. If someone feels they have been treated in
> a grossly inappropriate manner by a core team member, is it worthwhile
> to report this? I think they'd want to know a little more about what the
> process will be for that special case.

Yeah, somebody else made a similar point upthread.  I guess we felt that
the proper procedure was obvious given the structure, but maybe not.
I could support adding text to clarify this, perhaps along the line of

	In the event of a complaint against a CoC committee member, the
	process proceeds normally, but that person is excluded from the
	committee's discussions in the matter.  Similarly, in the event of
	a complaint against a core team member, the process proceeds
	normally, but that person is excluded from any core review that
	may occur.

and maybe also

	In such cases, removal from the committee or core is another
	possible sanction, in addition to those mentioned above.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-06T18:22:49Z

I wrote:
> Yeah, somebody else made a similar point upthread.  I guess we felt that
> the proper procedure was obvious given the structure, but maybe not.
> I could support adding text to clarify this, perhaps along the line of

Hmm ... actually, there's another special case that's not discussed,
which is what happens if a committee or core member wants to file a
complaint against someone else?  They certainly shouldn't get to rule
on their own complaint.  So maybe change "complaint against" to 
"complaint by or against" in my proposed addition, and then we're good.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> — 2018-06-06T18:24:14Z

On Wednesday, June 6, 2018, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com> writes:
> > My main feedback on the CoC is that it doesn't really say anything about
> > what to do if the complaint is against a core team member. This was
> > mentioned elsewhere in the email thread and I'm a bit surprised there's
> > nothing explicit in the CoC. If someone feels they have been treated in
> > a grossly inappropriate manner by a core team member, is it worthwhile
> > to report this? I think they'd want to know a little more about what the
> > process will be for that special case.
>
> Yeah, somebody else made a similar point upthread.  I guess we felt that
> the proper procedure was obvious given the structure, but maybe not.
> I could support adding text to clarify this, perhaps along the line of
>
>         In the event of a complaint against a CoC committee member, the
>         process proceeds normally, but that person is excluded from the
>         committee's discussions in the matter.  Similarly, in the event of
>         a complaint against a core team member, the process proceeds
>         normally, but that person is excluded from any core review that
>         may occur.
>
> and maybe also
>
>         In such cases, removal from the committee or core is another
>         possible sanction, in addition to those mentioned above.
>

Yeah, while it is pretty much self-evident I would agree that stating it
explicitly would benefit the document.  Both parts.

On the topic of privacy - who exactly, from an administrative aspect, has
access to the systems that house these kinds of confidential
communications?  Do these emails end up in PostgreSQL.org servers long-term
or is it mainly transient distribution and only individual's personal email
accounts, with whatever hosting provider they choose, hold the messages
long-term?

David J.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2018-06-06T18:29:47Z

On 2018-Jun-06, David G. Johnston wrote:

> On the topic of privacy - who exactly, from an administrative aspect, has
> access to the systems that house these kinds of confidential
> communications?  Do these emails end up in PostgreSQL.org servers long-term
> or is it mainly transient distribution and only individual's personal email
> accounts, with whatever hosting provider they choose, hold the messages
> long-term?

postgresql.org does not host personal email accounts, with a few
exceptions.  Most of these exceptions are actually just forwards to
mailboxes elsewhere, so the traffic stays in the relevant postgresql.org
server very briefly.  The few accounts that that are actual mailboxes in
postgresql.org are, as far as I know, only country-specific accounts for
advocacy, not personal points of contact.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-06-06T18:35:34Z

On 06/06/2018 11:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Yeah, somebody else made a similar point upthread.  I guess we felt that
>> the proper procedure was obvious given the structure, but maybe not.
>> I could support adding text to clarify this, perhaps along the line of
> 
> Hmm ... actually, there's another special case that's not discussed,
> which is what happens if a committee or core member wants to file a
> complaint against someone else?  They certainly shouldn't get to rule
> on their own complaint.  So maybe change "complaint against" to
> "complaint by or against" in my proposed addition, and then we're good.

Well that is a standard conflict of interest issue. Having simple 
language that says something such as:

A Member involved in complaints may not vote/rule on issues reported by 
the respective member.

JD

> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-06T18:36:53Z

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On the topic of privacy - who exactly, from an administrative aspect, has
> access to the systems that house these kinds of confidential
> communications?  Do these emails end up in PostgreSQL.org servers long-term
> or is it mainly transient distribution and only individual's personal email
> accounts, with whatever hosting provider they choose, hold the messages
> long-term?

The pginfra team, which has some overlap with core but is a separate
group (I'm not a member), are the guys with root on the servers.
So you have to trust them too as far as information security goes.
I don't know that the exact procedures for the CoC group have been
decided yet; but most likely it will work like the core team, for which
there's a closed mailing list that's not archived on the project servers.
The weakest link in the CoC traffic is likely to be the individual
committee members' email accounts --- I trust they'll take some suitable
precautions.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com> — 2018-06-06T18:51:19Z

On 6/6/18 11:24, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Yeah, while it is pretty much self-evident I would agree that stating
> it explicitly would benefit the document.  Both parts.
>
> On the topic of privacy - who exactly, from an administrative aspect,
> has access to the systems that house these kinds of confidential
> communications?  Do these emails end up in PostgreSQL.org servers
> long-term or is it mainly transient distribution and only individual's
> personal email accounts, with whatever hosting provider they choose,
> hold the messages long-term?

I was just thinking the same question.  Given the technical nature of
our audience, it's fair to assume many people will think about this. 
It's not just about technology either; if someone considers reporting
harassment they should have confidence that friends on the core team
won't talk about the report at the bar.  I don't think these things are
self-evident; it's sometimes obvious what the right thing is to do, but
frankly there are too many cases where people didn't do the right thing
in the past. That's why there's generally high relational and
professional risk for people to report harassment.

Maybe something general like "Confidentiality will be maintained; the
committee/core member in question will not gain access to any
information from the report or proceedings directly or indirectly at any
point in time."

I could see some value to stating it.  But this isn't a requirement, and
I also highly value the concision of the current draft.  So we'll see
what happens.  :)

-Jeremy

-- 
Jeremy Schneider
Database Engineer
Amazon Web Services

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jan Claeys <lists@janc.be> — 2018-06-07T00:14:48Z

On Wed, 2018-06-06 at 07:27 +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> The real fear here is the code of conduct being co-opted as a weapon
> of world-wide culture war and that's what is driving a lot of the
> resistance here.  This is particularly an American problem here and
> it causes  a lot of resistance among people who were, until the
> second world war, subject to some pretty serious problems by colonial
> powers.

I don't see how this could happen any more than it already can, because
as far as I can tell the goal is not to discuss complaints in public;
the committee would handle cases in private.  And if committee members
would try to abuse their power, I'm pretty sure they would be removed.

> Putting a bunch of American lawyers, psychologists, sociologists,
> marketers etc on the board in the name of diversity would do way more
> harm than good.

I didn't say they have to be American, and I didn't say there has to be
a bunch of them.  I just said it would be good if there were also
people who aren't (just only) developers, DBAs or other very technical
people.

-- 
Jan Claeys

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-06-07T07:00:29Z

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Jan Claeys <lists@janc.be> wrote:

> On Wed, 2018-06-06 at 07:27 +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> > The real fear here is the code of conduct being co-opted as a weapon
> > of world-wide culture war and that's what is driving a lot of the
> > resistance here.  This is particularly an American problem here and
> > it causes  a lot of resistance among people who were, until the
> > second world war, subject to some pretty serious problems by colonial
> > powers.
>
> I don't see how this could happen any more than it already can, because
> as far as I can tell the goal is not to discuss complaints in public;
> the committee would handle cases in private.  And if committee members
> would try to abuse their power, I'm pretty sure they would be removed.
>

Right.  I think the fears are overblown but you do have to remember that we
started this whole public side of the process when there was a real effort
by some in around open source to push contributor codes of conducts that
were expressly political (the Contributor Covenant for example) and in the
wake of Opalgate.

I do not doubt that at some point we will face the same.  I don't doubt
that such efforts will be unsuccessful.  But I do think they will put the
project through some public controversy and grief and so we are best off to
try to minimize the attack surface.

>
> > Putting a bunch of American lawyers, psychologists, sociologists,
> > marketers etc on the board in the name of diversity would do way more
> > harm than good.
>
> I didn't say they have to be American, and I didn't say there has to be
> a bunch of them.  I just said it would be good if there were also
> people who aren't (just only) developers, DBAs or other very technical
> people.
>

Ok I get what your concern is now.  I am not sure the formal qualifications
matter but I would agree that the committee needs to be staffed with people
we trust to be good "people people" rather than good "tech people."

>
>
> --
> Jan Claeys
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2018-06-08T08:46:57Z

On 6 June 2018 at 19:22, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Yeah, somebody else made a similar point upthread.  I guess we felt that
>> the proper procedure was obvious given the structure, but maybe not.
>> I could support adding text to clarify this, perhaps along the line of
>
> Hmm ... actually, there's another special case that's not discussed,
> which is what happens if a committee or core member wants to file a
> complaint against someone else?  They certainly shouldn't get to rule
> on their own complaint.  So maybe change "complaint against" to
> "complaint by or against" in my proposed addition, and then we're good.

Which brings up the further complication of in which order are things
dealt with?

If people file complaints against each other. Is there benefit in
rushing to file a complaint?

"The Committee will inform the complainant and the alleged violator of
their decision at that time." That is unclear.

Are complaints considered AFTER information has been collected from
both parties? If so, it doesn't matter who complains first, both
parties will get their say.

But if the person being complained about only hears of the complaint
after judgement has been made this means there is benefit in being the
first to complain, which will encourage people to complain early so
they can get their boot in first. And also cause double the volume of
complaints, since it will be necessary to counter-complain in order
for the alleged violator to get their say.

Would it not be better to consider arbitration as the first step in
dispute resolution? Do we need judgement by a committee as the first
step? Do we even have time for judges to judge?

Thanks for working on this.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2018-06-08T09:18:36Z

On 2018-06-08 09:46, Simon Riggs wrote:
<snip>
> Would it not be better to consider arbitration as the first step in
> dispute resolution?

This bit sounds like it'd need to be on a case-by-case basis.

It's pretty easy to imagine scenarios where arbitration wouldn't be
appropriate.

Whether or not they come about in the PG Community or not is a
different matter.

My point being that arbitration isn't necessarily automatically the
right direction.

I'd probably leave it up to the CoC team/people to figure it out. :)

+ Justin

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-06-08T09:53:54Z

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> wrote:

> On 2018-06-08 09:46, Simon Riggs wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Would it not be better to consider arbitration as the first step in
>> dispute resolution?
>>
>
> This bit sounds like it'd need to be on a case-by-case basis.
>
> It's pretty easy to imagine scenarios where arbitration wouldn't be
> appropriate.
>
> Whether or not they come about in the PG Community or not is a
> different matter.
>
> My point being that arbitration isn't necessarily automatically the
> right direction.
>
> I'd probably leave it up to the CoC team/people to figure it out. :)

+1

If it were me I would just say that CoC has an obligation to try in good
faith to resolve things in line with the common interest of an
international community and leave it at that.

>
>
> + Justin
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

mariusz <marius@mtvk.pl> — 2018-06-08T12:04:36Z

On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 12:06 -0400, James Keener wrote:
> Do we need a code of conduct like this, or so we need a more general
> dispute resolution process? Something that is public and aimed at
> mediating disputes (even ones about bad conduct) and removing repeat
> offenders. To be honest, larger issues of harassment should be handled
> by the police.
> 
> A code of conduct is basically "be excellent to each other", but what
> that means is never going to be well codified in a document anyone can
> produce. It's why we have a judiciary in the "real world".
> 
> I don't participate too much here, but I've never see a group
> implement a code of conduct go well. I'm a fairly socially liberal
> person, but have been told in one group that my views as a cis,
> hetero, white, middle class make aren't welcome in discussions about
> getting more women or minorities to participate. Specifically there
> was a discussion in that group about how since women often bare the
> burden of child care, even when both partners work, that side projects
> as a hiring criteria are sexist. I mentioned that as an involved
> father I also find little time to work on side projects and that the
> issue is more about those with kids than specifically women and was
> essentially run out of the group.
> 
> Another time, same group, someone was discussing guns, and someone
> else said that this kind of discussion is why women don't participate
> much. I mentioned that I know more women who own guns, hunt, and
> target shoot than I do men who do that. I was again told to shut up
> and banded for a few days when I pressed as to why a not-male-centric
> discussion was being censored in the name of sexism and fairness.
> 
> How will this CoC handle these situation? I obviously offended people
> and had no intention of doing so. I was also told that the
> moderators/CoC commitee would act fairly, and I obviously believe I
> was mistreated by them. Forgive me for not believing in the
> benevolence of the governors.
> 

i think that's much broader problem of CoC that anyone would like to
admit.

but before i go further, let me introduce context of my personal view.
i'm great fan of postgresql (although somewhat outside of my real work,
i use it a lot for work and hobby) and that community, which i find
really great.
i wouldn't describe myself as an active community member, i'm mostly
lurking (sometimes with significant delay) learning even more from other
people's problems and solutions, and at times when i could be of help to
someone it's too late (due to significant delays in reading).
as of CoC, i would say i really do not care that much and it does not
change my life a bit. but...
there's always a "but".
i personally hate formalizing everything for the idea of having all
formalized.

CoC in itself is political thing, for enforcing political correctness in
many social, cultural, geographical, political, religious, intimate, and
other aspects, all beyond community's interests.
not only is prone to be abused, but implicitly invites ways of abusing
to community's life.

and generally (not saying anyone here personally) people demanding
special treatment because of some CoC rules and people enforcing
policing force of CoC in the name of political correctness, or for their
personal needs of being part of, or contributing to that policing force
may be more dangerous to community and other members than people who can
very occasionally unintentionally offend someone.

and does real harassment comes from unintentional offense? maybe, when
the victim feels too much offended to try to understand what really
happened.
and than CoC becomes a tool to revenge, even more so when CoC is to
punish offender, not really to mediate between involved parties. culture
differences do not help in understanding each other when it comes that
far.
misunderstanding (involuntary or intentional (yes, that may happen)) is
far more expected than intentional offense, that should be addressed and
not political correctness.

formalizing correctness is never good, helps nothing, introduces
problems. creating entity for judging and punishing does not solve those
newly introduced problems.

wouldn't it be better if CoC didn't touch aspects beyond community's
interests, only stated that friendliness is expected, some ways of
mediation available and punishment only as a last resort solution?

when technical community walks into keeping eyes on member's personal
beliefs, feelings and way of life (like being too much polite, too much
rude, too much humorous, too much fanatic, too much religious, or
whatever) than that's not the same technical community anymore.

just my 2c, ban me my dear community if i violated your CoC ;)

> Jim
> 
> On June 5, 2018 11:49:06 AM EDT, Benjamin Scherrey
> <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> wrote:
>         
>         
>         On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
>         wrote:
>                 It is of course possible that a member of the
>                 committee could act in
>                 bad faith for any number of reasons. You can say the
>                 same thing about
>                 any position of leadership or authority within the
>                 community, though.
>                 That hasn't really been much of a problem in my
>                 experience, and I see
>                 no reason for particular concern about it here.
>         
>         
>         I thought the same thing as a member of the Django community.
>         It adopted a CoC that I vocally warned was dangerous and far
>         more likely to be abused than provide any benefit. I was
>         shocked when the very first time it was ever invoked it was by
>         one of the founders of the project (whom I previously
>         personally respected) and it was absolutely used in the manner
>         that I had feared which was to shut someone up whose opinion
>         he did not like rather than any legitimate concern.
>         Unfortunately this is not such an unusual circumstance as one
>         might hope in these projects or conferences. It is impossible
>         to separate the concept of political correctness from these
>         CoCs I find and they are much more dangerous things than they
>         appear. We should tread with extreme cautious about adopting
>         such a thing.
>         
>         
>           -- Ben Scherrey
>          
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jonathan Katz <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> — 2018-06-08T12:19:26Z

> On Jun 8, 2018, at 4:46 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 
> On 6 June 2018 at 19:22, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Yeah, somebody else made a similar point upthread.  I guess we felt that
>>> the proper procedure was obvious given the structure, but maybe not.
>>> I could support adding text to clarify this, perhaps along the line of
>> 
>> Hmm ... actually, there's another special case that's not discussed,
>> which is what happens if a committee or core member wants to file a
>> complaint against someone else?  They certainly shouldn't get to rule
>> on their own complaint.  So maybe change "complaint against" to
>> "complaint by or against" in my proposed addition, and then we're good.
> 
> Which brings up the further complication of in which order are things
> dealt with?
> 
> If people file complaints against each other. Is there benefit in
> rushing to file a complaint?
> 
> "The Committee will inform the complainant and the alleged violator of
> their decision at that time." That is unclear.
> 
> Are complaints considered AFTER information has been collected from
> both parties? If so, it doesn't matter who complains first, both
> parties will get their say.
> 
> But if the person being complained about only hears of the complaint
> after judgement has been made this means there is benefit in being the
> first to complain, which will encourage people to complain early so
> they can get their boot in first. And also cause double the volume of
> complaints, since it will be necessary to counter-complain in order
> for the alleged violator to get their say.

Earlier it says:

"With the cooperation of all parties, the Committee will aim to complete the
investigation in a period of two weeks from the receipt of the complaint.”

which I interpret as “The CoC committee will collect information in order to
make a fair decision” which would involve talking to the alleged violator(s).

Perhaps we need an additional line that says the CoC committee will be
reaching out to all parties involved in a complaint, just to be clear?

> Would it not be better to consider arbitration as the first step in
> dispute resolution? Do we need judgement by a committee as the first
> step? Do we even have time for judges to judge?

I have noticed it is in the nature of our community for people to try and work
things out amongst themselves first before escalating to others, or to take one
another aside to try and work things out.  For the minor issues that crop up (and
I know “minor” is relative), I hope that remains the case.  I view the CoC as being
in place for having a way to report abusive behavior and harassment and
knowing we will ensure our community is a safe, fun place to collaborate.

Jonathan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-06-08T15:57:47Z

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> writes:
> On 2018-06-08 09:46, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Would it not be better to consider arbitration as the first step in
>> dispute resolution?

> I'd probably leave it up to the CoC team/people to figure it out. :)

Yeah, exactly.  I don't think it's helpful for the document to try to
micro-manage the committee's processes.

If the committee isn't working in good faith, and effectively, to try
to resolve disputes fairly then we have bigger problems.  At that
point you think about replacing the committee ... which *is* spelled
out in the document.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2018-08-15T19:22:10Z

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
> of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
> July 1 2018.

We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update on when
this will be moving forward?

Or did I miss something?

Thanks!

Stephen

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2018-08-15T19:29:43Z

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 03:22:10PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
> > of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
> > July 1 2018.
> 
> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update on when
> this will be moving forward?
> 
> Or did I miss something?

Are we waiting for the conference community guidlines to be solidified?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-08-15T19:31:30Z

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Unless there are substantial objections, or nontrivial changes as a result
>> of this round of comments, we anticipate making the CoC official as of
>> July 1 2018.

> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update on when
> this will be moving forward?

> Or did I miss something?

Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard to keep
forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting the initial
committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-09-12T20:53:46Z

I wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
>> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update on when
>> this will be moving forward?
>> Or did I miss something?

> Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard to keep
> forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting the initial
> committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
> wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.

I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
the comments in this thread; see

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

(That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)

I think we are about ready to announce the initial membership of the
CoC committee, as well, but that should be a separate post.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-14T08:31:25Z

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> I wrote:
> > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> >> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update on when
> >> this will be moving forward?
> >> Or did I miss something?
>
> > Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard to keep
> > forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting the
> initial
> > committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
> > wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.
>
> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
> the comments in this thread; see
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>
> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>

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 we are about ready to announce the initial membership of the
> CoC committee, as well, but that should be a separate post.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-14T08:38:56Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>> > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
>> >> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update on
>> when
>> >> this will be moving forward?
>> >> Or did I miss something?
>>
>> > Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard to keep
>> > forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting the
>> initial
>> > committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
>> > wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.
>>
>> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
>> the comments in this thread; see
>>
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>
>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>
>
> 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.
>

Suggestion instead:

"Personally directed behavior is not automatically excluded from this code
of conduct merely because it does not happen on the postgresql.org
infrastructure.  In the case where a dispute of such a nature occurs
outside said infrastructure, if other parties are unable to act, this code
of conduct may be considered where it is, on the balance, in the interest
of the global community to do so."

This preserves the ability to act, without basically providing the same
invitation for problems.


>> I think we are about ready to announce the initial membership of the
>> CoC committee, as well, but that should be a separate post.
>>
>>                         regards, tom lane
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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 Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Karsten Hilbert <karsten.hilbert@gmx.net> — 2018-09-14T08:49:55Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:38:56AM +0200, Chris Travers 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.
> >
> 
> Suggestion instead:
> 
> "Personally directed behavior is not automatically excluded from this code
> of conduct merely because it does not happen on the postgresql.org
> infrastructure.  In the case where a dispute of such a nature occurs
> outside said infrastructure, if other parties are unable to act, this code
> of conduct may be considered where it is, on the balance, in the interest
> of the global community to do so."
> 
> This preserves the ability to act, without basically providing the same
> invitation for problems.

Sounds pretty balanced to me.

Karsten
-- 
GPG  40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6  5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Ilya Kosmodemiansky <ik@dataegret.com> — 2018-09-14T09:45:05Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> 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.

> --
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
> Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
> lock-in.
> http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-14T10:10:47Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ilya Kosmodemiansky <ik@dataegret.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>
> 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 Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Damir Colak <dcolak@gmail.com> — 2018-09-14T11:21:33Z

Please take me off this list.


> On Sep 14, 2018, at 05:31, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net <mailto:sfrost@snowman.net>> writes:
> >> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update on when
> >> this will be moving forward?
> >> Or did I miss something?
> 
> > Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard to keep
> > forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting the initial
> > committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
> > wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.
> 
> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
> the comments in this thread; see
> 
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct <https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct>
> 
> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
> 
> 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 <http://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 we are about ready to announce the initial membership of the
> CoC committee, as well, but that should be a separate post.
> 
>                         regards, tom lane
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
> 
> Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor lock-in.
> http://www.efficito.com/learn_more <http://www.efficito.com/learn_more>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-09-14T12:50:34Z

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@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ilya Kosmodemiansky <ik@dataegret.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers
><chris.travers@gmail.com>
>> 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 Travers
>
>Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
>lock-in.
>http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> — 2018-09-14T13:18:12Z

I have followed this list for a couple of years, have benefited several times from quick and helpful advice,  and wonder whether all this code of conduct stuff is a solution in search of a problem. Or, if there is a problem now and then, whether an elaborate code does a better job than reminding offenders that they’ve crossed a line marked by common decency or common courtesy. I think a list manager should have the right to expel repeat offenders. I doubt whether ‘proceduralizing’ offences against common decency or common courtesy makes it easier to police what is always a tricky boundary.

It is possible to spend a lot of time and energy designing bureaucratic solution that in the end does little good.  My grandchildren were taught that “please and thank you sound so nice .... manners are important, be polite” sung to the tune of Frère Jacques. They don’t always remember it,  but a longer poem wouldn’t help.

From: James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com>
Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 at 7:52 AM
To: "pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>, "ik@dataegret.com" <ik@dataegret.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, "pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, "pgsql-advocacy@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-advocacy@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct plan

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@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ilya Kosmodemiansky <ik@dataegret.com<mailto:ik@dataegret.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com<mailto:chris.travers@gmail.com>> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__postgresql.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=BYjxekkm1qd5vvRFXRtzSk35tzn2FgzBWbZZf_O53G4&s=2J5h4ShLpyZtHe5CYuBvsEKDxkSxUtzXxffWGDSpOB8&e=> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__postgresql.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=BYjxekkm1qd5vvRFXRtzSk35tzn2FgzBWbZZf_O53G4&s=2J5h4ShLpyZtHe5CYuBvsEKDxkSxUtzXxffWGDSpOB8&e=> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__postgresql.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=BYjxekkm1qd5vvRFXRtzSk35tzn2FgzBWbZZf_O53G4&s=2J5h4ShLpyZtHe5CYuBvsEKDxkSxUtzXxffWGDSpOB8&e=> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.efficito.com_learn-5Fmore&d=DwMFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=BYjxekkm1qd5vvRFXRtzSk35tzn2FgzBWbZZf_O53G4&s=nXSr3sJx-gkzLmudClvV0WcTKV9Nf452OZmsnaQTfMs&e=>

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.efficito.com_learn-5Fmore&d=DwMFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=BYjxekkm1qd5vvRFXRtzSk35tzn2FgzBWbZZf_O53G4&s=nXSr3sJx-gkzLmudClvV0WcTKV9Nf452OZmsnaQTfMs&e=>

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2018-09-14T13:41:58Z

On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us 
> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
> 
>     I wrote:
>      > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net <mailto:sfrost@snowman.net>>
>     writes:
>      >> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update
>     on when
>      >> this will be moving forward?
>      >> Or did I miss something?
> 
>      > Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard
>     to keep
>      > forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting
>     the initial
>      > committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
>      > wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.
> 
>     I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been
>     moving.
>     The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
>     the comments in this thread; see
> 
>     https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
> 
>     (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>     history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
> 
> 
> 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 
> <http://postgresql.org> infrastructure, so long as there is not another 
> Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a conference's Code of 
> Conduct)."

I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, 
for whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 
'community member' has no strict definition.

> 
> 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 we are about ready to announce the initial membership of the
>     CoC committee, as well, but that should be a separate post.
> 
>                              regards, tom lane
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
> 
> Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor 
> lock-in.
> http://www.efficito.com/learn_more


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Robert Eckhardt <reckhardt@pivotal.io> — 2018-09-14T13:59:32Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
<adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>>
>>     I wrote:
>>      > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net <mailto:sfrost@snowman.net>>
>>     writes:
>>      >> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update
>>     on when
>>      >> this will be moving forward?
>>      >> Or did I miss something?
>>
>>      > Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard
>>     to keep
>>      > forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting
>>     the initial
>>      > committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
>>      > wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.
>>
>>     I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been
>>     moving.
>>     The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based
>> on
>>     the comments in this thread; see
>>
>>     https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>
>>     (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>>     history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>
>>
>> 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 <http://postgresql.org>
>> infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes
>> precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
>
> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 'community
> member' has no strict definition.

I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.

these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
vitriol.

My $0.02
-- Rob Eckhardt

>
>
>>
>> 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 we are about ready to announce the initial membership of the
>>     CoC committee, as well, but that should be a separate post.
>>
>>                              regards, tom lane
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Wishes,
>> Chris Travers
>>
>> Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
>> lock-in.
>> http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-09-14T14:08:40Z

On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>     I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been
>     moving.
>     The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC
>     based on
>     the comments in this thread; see
>
>     https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>
>     (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>     history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>
>
> 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 
> <http://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 is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has 
no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full stop.

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.

One area where this is going to cause a lot of issues is within the 
social constructs of the micro-communities. Are we going to ban Chinese 
members because their government is anti Christian and anti Muslim? Are 
we going to ban members of countries that are not as progressive 
thinking about LGBT rights? Are we going to tell evangelical Christians 
or devout Muslims that they are unwelcome because they are against Gay 
marriage? Are we going to ban Atheists because they think Christians are 
fools?

I think the answer would be, "no" unless they post an opinion... Is that 
really what our community is becoming, thought police?

There was a time when Open Source was about code and community. It is 
clear that it is becoming about authority and politics.

I am the individual that initiated this whole process many moons ago 
with the intent that we have a simple, "be excellent to each other" code 
of conduct. What we have now (although much better than previous drafts) 
is still an over reach.

tl;dr; The willingness of people to think they are right is only 
exceeded by their willingness to oppress those they don't agree with.

JD
-- 

Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-09-14T14:10:38Z

I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen

> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
> vitriol.
>

You haven't established that this is both 1) the PG mailing list's problem
and that 2) this can't and won't be used to retaliate against those holding
unpopular viewpoints but aren't specifically harassing anyone.

Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever appear
along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
option.

People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the mailing
list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the list.
How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.

Conferences are free to hold their own CoC because you explicitly agree to
it when you purchase a ticket, and it's governing interactions at the
conference
(or should only be governing actions at the conference.)

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2018-09-14T14:13:38Z

On 9/14/18 6:59 AM, Robert Eckhardt wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
> <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
>> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers 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 <http://postgresql.org>
>>> infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes
>>> precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>>
>>
>> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
>> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 'community
>> member' has no strict definition.
> 
> I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
> 
> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
> vitriol.

Ask yourself, if this was a government agency tracking your speech 
across platforms would you be as approving? Personally I find the whole 
thing creepy.

> 
> My $0.02
> -- Rob Eckhardt
> 

>> Adrian Klaver
>> adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
>>
> 


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2018-09-14T14:14:26Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:

> On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>
> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
>> the comments in this thread; see
>>
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>
>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>
>
> 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 is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has
> no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full
> stop.
>

I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...

I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other software
and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they become abusive
or offensive to people making other software choices, then they are clearly
bringing the project into disrepute and we should have every right to
sanction them by preventing them participating in our project in whatever
ways are deemed appropriate.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2018-09-14T14:15:33Z

Greetings,

* Adrian Klaver (adrian.klaver@aklaver.com) wrote:
> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
> ><mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
> >
> >    I wrote:
> >     > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net <mailto:sfrost@snowman.net>>
> >    writes:
> >     >> We seem to be a bit past that timeline...  Do we have any update
> >    on when
> >     >> this will be moving forward?
> >     >> Or did I miss something?
> >
> >     > Nope, you didn't.  Folks have been on holiday which made it hard
> >    to keep
> >     > forward progress going, particularly with respect to selecting
> >    the initial
> >     > committee members.  Now that Magnus is back on shore, I hope we can
> >     > wrap it up quickly --- say by the end of August.
> >
> >    I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been
> >    moving.
> >    The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
> >    the comments in this thread; see
> >
> >    https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
> >
> >    (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
> >    history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
> >
> >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
> ><http://postgresql.org> infrastructure, so long as there is not another
> >Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a conference's Code of
> >Conduct)."

I was wondering about that myself and rather had an objection to
implying that this CoC doesn't apply when there's a CoC set up for some
event.  The CoC for an event is typically going to be thinking about
things from the event's timeline (which is on the order of days),
whereas something which happened at an event reflects on the community
and should also be addressed at that level.

> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 'community
> member' has no strict definition.

The goal of this CoC isn't to cure the world, it's to define what's
acceptable behavior to continue to be a member of this community, to
participate in this community through the mailing lists, IRC, etc, and
to be seen as a representative of the community/project.

We certainly have both the right and the remit to define who we want to
have in our community and to represent this community and project to
other communities, projects, organizations, and to people in general.
This CoC is about making it clear what's acceptable and what isn't and
making it clear to everyone, including other communities, that we take
conduct seriously and have a mechanism for dealing with issues that's
fair and reasonable.

Thanks!

Stephen

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-09-14T14:16:24Z

[ Let's try to trim this discussion to just -general, please ]

Robert Eckhardt <reckhardt@pivotal.io> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
> <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
>> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers 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 <http://postgresql.org>
>>>> infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes
>>>> precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."

>> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
>> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 'community
>> member' has no strict definition.

> I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.

Actually, that addition was in response to concerns that the previous
version didn't delimit the intended scope of the document *at all*.
So I would say it's more restricted now than the previous version.

I feel that most of the concerns being raised today are straw men.
If the PG lists were a place for political discussion, there'd be
valid points to worry about as to whether a CoC might be used to
stifle free speech.  But every example that's been given has been
not merely off-topic but wildly so, so I don't find the discussion
to be very realistic.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> — 2018-09-14T14:16:58Z

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 15:10, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

> I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
>
>> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
>> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
>> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>>
>> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
>> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
>> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
>> vitriol.
>>
>
> You haven't established that this is both 1) the PG mailing list's problem
> and that 2) this can't and won't be used to retaliate against those holding
> unpopular viewpoints but aren't specifically harassing anyone.
>

This argument (whether or not PostgreSQL should have a CoC) was hashed out
pretty heavily a year ago. In my opinion it wasn't really clear that any
one side or another won the argument but the people who matter came down on
the side of having one. It's pretty unlikely that re-running these
arguments is going to make those people change their minds.

Certainly posting obscenities to these open forums isn't going to do it,
however strongly you might feel about it.

Geoff

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2018-09-14T14:17:51Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:10 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

> I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
>
>> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
>> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
>> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>>
>> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
>> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
>> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
>> vitriol.
>>
>
> You haven't established that this is both 1) the PG mailing list's problem
> and that 2) this can't and won't be used to retaliate against those holding
> unpopular viewpoints but aren't specifically harassing anyone.
>
> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
> appear
> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
> option.
>

If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as reports
and details of reports are to be kept confidential.


>
> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the mailing
> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the list.
> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>

The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
interact.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2018-09-14T14:19:02Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
wrote:

> On 9/14/18 6:59 AM, Robert Eckhardt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
>> <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers 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 <
>>>> http://postgresql.org>
>>>> infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that
>>>> takes
>>>> precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
>>> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as
>>> 'community
>>> member' has no strict definition.
>>>
>>
>> I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
>> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
>> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
>> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>>
>> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
>> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
>> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
>> vitriol.
>>
>
> Ask yourself, if this was a government agency tracking your speech across
> platforms would you be as approving? Personally I find the whole thing
> creepy.


No one is tracking anything as part of the CoC. That's nothing but a straw
man argument.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-09-14T14:19:59Z

On 09/14/2018 06:59 AM, Robert Eckhardt 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 <http://postgresql.org>
>>> infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes
>>> precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>>
>> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world, for
>> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as 'community
>> member' has no strict definition.
> I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.

Yes but are we to be the School Principal for the world?

> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
> vitriol.

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?

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-09-14T14:21:16Z

> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
>> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
>> appear
>> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
>> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
>> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
>> option.
>>
>
> If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as reports
> and details of reports are to be kept confidential.
>

That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that the
attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence opposing
viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.


>
>
>>
>> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
>> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the
>> mailing
>> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the list.
>> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>>
>
> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
> interact.
>

So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the time. Baring
specific
agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim responsibility
of my
personal business?

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2018-09-14T14:28:43Z

On 9/14/18 7:19 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> 
> 

> 
> No one is tracking anything as part of the CoC. That's nothing but a 
> straw man argument.

Not buying it or the below is null and void:

"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)."

Not sure how the above can be enforced without someone reporting on what 
is said outside the 'postgresql.org infrastructure'?

At any rate, whether I like it or not the CoC is here to stay. I just 
feel a dissenting opinion is important to the conversation.

> 
> -- 
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
> 
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2018-09-14T14:29:03Z

Greetings,

* Joshua D. Drake (jd@commandprompt.com) 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

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Ilya Kosmodemiansky <ik@dataegret.com> — 2018-09-14T14:31:12Z

> On 14. Sep 2018, at 16:17, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community interact.

I could only heavily +1 this. I can get from where comes the idea that community is only what happens just on postgresql.org or just on some other channel community uses. Community is people who joined it and CoC supposed to apply even if people use analogue telephones. This is about communication, not about communication channels. 

> 
> -- 
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
> 
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2018-09-14T14:36:38Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:21 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

>
> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
>>> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
>>> appear
>>> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
>>> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
>>> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
>>> option.
>>>
>>
>> If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as
>> reports and details of reports are to be kept confidential.
>>
>
> That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that the
> attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
> about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence opposing
> viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.
>

Sure, but an attacker can do that now. Having the CoC doesn't change
anything there, though it does give us a framework to deal with it.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
>>> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the
>>> mailing
>>> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the
>>> list.
>>> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>>>
>>
>> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
>> interact.
>>
>
> So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the time.
> Baring specific
> agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim responsibility
> of my
> personal business?
>

If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or
harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then it
becomes our business.

If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and not
something the project would get involved in.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-09-14T14:37:57Z

On 09/14/2018 07:14 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com 
> <mailto:jd@commandprompt.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>>         I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all
>>         been moving.
>>         The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft
>>         CoC based on
>>         the comments in this thread; see
>>
>>         https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>         <https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct>
>>
>>         (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on
>>         the page
>>         history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>
>>
>>     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
>>     <http://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 is a complicated issue. On the one hand,
>     postgresql.org <http://postgresql.org> has no business telling
>     people how to act outside of postgresql.org
>     <http://postgresql.org>. Full stop.
>
>
> I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...
>
> I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other 
> software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they 
> become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices, 
> then they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we 
> should have every right to sanction them by preventing them 
> participating in our project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate.

We all know that PostgreSQL is the only database we should use and 
anybody using a different one just hasn't been enlightened yet. :P

I think we need to define community member. I absolutely see your point 
of the individual is a contributor but community member is rather 
ethereal in this context don't you think?

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2018-09-14T14:38:04Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
wrote:

> On 9/14/18 7:19 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> No one is tracking anything as part of the CoC. That's nothing but a
>> straw man argument.
>>
>
> Not buying it or the below is null and void:
>
> "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)."
>
> Not sure how the above can be enforced without someone reporting on what
> is said outside the 'postgresql.org infrastructure'?
>
> At any rate, whether I like it or not the CoC is here to stay. I just feel
> a dissenting opinion is important to the conversation.


I can report someone who steal my wallet to the police. That doesn't mean I
track pick-pockets activity.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Ilya Kosmodemiansky <ik@dataegret.com> — 2018-09-14T14:38:19Z


> On 14. Sep 2018, at 16:31, Ilya Kosmodemiansky <ik@dataegret.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could only heavily +1 this. I can get

I can’t get of course, sorry for typo


> from where comes the idea that community is only what happens just on postgresql.org or just on some other channel community uses.



> . 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dave Page
>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>> 
>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-09-14T14:41:08Z

> Community is people who joined it

We're not a "community." We're people using email to get help with or
discuss technical aspects of PostgreSQL. The types of discussions that
would normally be held within a "community" would be entirely off-topic
here.  We should be professional to each other here; we don't need to be
buddies. There is a clear difference between "professionalism" and
"community". A document governing interactions on this list is within the
right of the moderation, but leaking into the "real world" is an
abomination and perversion of what this group is.

My church group is 100% within their right to kick me out of teaching
Sunday School if I were to have an affair. Teaching Sunday School is an act
taking place as part of a community of people with a shared belief and
culture. My job would 100% not be within their right to fire me for having
an affair, as it's not a community, but a professional environment and my
personal life is just that: personal. (Baring an ethics clauses signed when
joining, I guess?)

Jim

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Ilya Kosmodemiansky <ik@dataegret.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 14. Sep 2018, at 16:17, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>
>
> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
> interact.
>
>
> I could only heavily +1 this. I can get from where comes the idea that
> community is only what happens just on postgresql.org or just on some
> other channel community uses. Community is people who joined it and CoC
> supposed to apply even if people use analogue telephones. This is about
> communication, not about communication channels.
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2018-09-14T14:42:34Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:

> On 09/14/2018 07:14 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>>
>> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
>>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
>>> the comments in this thread; see
>>>
>>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>>
>>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>>
>>
>> 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 is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has
>> no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full
>> stop.
>>
>
> I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...
>
> I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other
> software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they
> become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices, then
> they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we should have
> every right to sanction them by preventing them participating in our
> project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate.
>
>
> We all know that PostgreSQL is the only database we should use and anybody
> using a different one just hasn't been enlightened yet. :P
>
> I think we need to define community member. I absolutely see your point of
> the individual is a contributor but community member is rather ethereal in
> this context don't you think?
>

There are some fuzzy edges I guess (e.g. Slack), but in my mind it's always
been anyone who participates in any of the projects communications channels.


-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-09-14T14:43:45Z

On 09/14/2018 07:36 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:21 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com 
> <mailto:jim@jimkeener.com>> wrote:
>
>
>             Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the
>             committee, but I would
>             counter that it's still a stain on me and something that
>             will forever appear
>             along side my name in search results and that the amount
>             of time and
>             stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my
>             voluntarily leaving
>             the community, which would be seen as an admission of
>             guilt, my only
>             option.
>
>
>         If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't
>         happen as reports and details of reports are to be kept
>         confidential.
>
>
>     That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that
>     the attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
>     about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence
>     opposing viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.
>
>
> Sure, but an attacker can do that now. Having the CoC doesn't change 
> anything there, though it does give us a framework to deal with it.
>
>
>             People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not
>             agreeing to join
>             some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing
>             up for the mailing
>             list.  The current moderators can already remove bad
>             actors from the list.
>             How they act outside of the list is non of this list's
>             concern.
>
>
>         The lists are just one of many different ways people in this
>         community interact.
>
>
>     So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the
>     time. Baring specific
>     agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim
>     responsibility of my
>     personal business?
>
>
> If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or 
> harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then 
> it becomes our business.
>
> If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and 
> not something the project would get involved in.

O.k. so this isn't clear (at least to me) within the CoC. I want to make 
sure I understand. You are saying that if a community member posts on 
Twitter that they believe gays are going to hell, reporting that to the 
CoC committee would result in a non-violation UNLESS they referenced 
postgresql within the post?

JD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Fwd: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-09-14T14:44:35Z

I didn't realize they had replied personally to me.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct plan
To: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>


If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or
> harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then it
> becomes our business.
>
> If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and not
> something the project would get involved in.
>
>
And yet, none of that is made clear or establish or even hinted at in the
current CoC. Also, may I refer you to https://github.com/opal/opal/
issues/941 as a scenario in which an outside conversation can leak in and
become the business of the group?

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-09-14T14:46:10Z

On 09/14/2018 07:41 AM, James Keener wrote:
> > Community is people who joined it
>
> We're not a "community."

I do not think you are going to get very many people on board with that 
argument. As anyone who knows me will attest I am one of the most 
contrarian members of this community but I still agree that it is a 
community.

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2018-09-14T14:48:37Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:41 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

> > Community is people who joined it
>
> We're not a "community." We're people using email to get help with or
> discuss technical aspects of PostgreSQL. The types of discussions that
> would normally be held within a "community" would be entirely off-topic
> here.  We should be professional to each other here; we don't need to be
> buddies. There is a clear difference between "professionalism" and
> "community". A document governing interactions on this list is within the
> right of the moderation, but leaking into the "real world" is an
> abomination and perversion of what this group is.
>

To many of us, we absolutely are a community. Remember, there are people
here who have been around for 20+ years, of which many have become close
friends, having started working on PostgreSQL as a hobby. We have always
seen the project as a community of like-minded technologists, and welcome
others that wish to join, whether just to ask a single question or to hang
around for the next 20 years. I do see your viewpoint, but I would counter
that coming here for help (for example) is quite different from calling
tech support at a vendor.


>
> My church group is 100% within their right to kick me out of teaching
> Sunday School if I were to have an affair. Teaching Sunday School is an act
> taking place as part of a community of people with a shared belief and
> culture. My job would 100% not be within their right to fire me for having
> an affair, as it's not a community, but a professional environment and my
> personal life is just that: personal. (Baring an ethics clauses signed when
> joining, I guess?)
>

> Jim
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Ilya Kosmodemiansky <ik@dataegret.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 14. Sep 2018, at 16:17, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
>> interact.
>>
>>
>> I could only heavily +1 this. I can get from where comes the idea that
>> community is only what happens just on postgresql.org or just on some
>> other channel community uses. Community is people who joined it and CoC
>> supposed to apply even if people use analogue telephones. This is about
>> communication, not about communication channels.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Page
>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>
>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2018-09-14T14:51:42Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:

> On 09/14/2018 07:36 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:21 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
>>>> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
>>>> appear
>>>> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
>>>> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
>>>> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
>>>> option.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as
>>> reports and details of reports are to be kept confidential.
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that the
>> attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
>> about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence
>> opposing viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.
>>
>
> Sure, but an attacker can do that now. Having the CoC doesn't change
> anything there, though it does give us a framework to deal with it.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
>>>> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the
>>>> mailing
>>>> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the
>>>> list.
>>>> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
>>> interact.
>>>
>>
>> So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the time.
>> Baring specific
>> agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim responsibility
>> of my
>> personal business?
>>
>
> If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or
> harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then it
> becomes our business.
>
> If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and not
> something the project would get involved in.
>
>
> O.k. so this isn't clear (at least to me) within the CoC. I want to make
> sure I understand. You are saying that if a community member posts on
> Twitter that they believe gays are going to hell, reporting that to the CoC
> committee would result in a non-violation UNLESS they referenced postgresql
> within the post?
>

Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established this Code
of Conduct for community interaction and participation in the project’s
work and the community at large." basically says?

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-09-14T14:52:33Z

> To many of us, we absolutely are a community. Remember, there are people
> here who have been around for 20+ years, of which many have become close
> friends, having started working on PostgreSQL as a hobby. We have always
> seen the project as a community of like-minded technologists, and welcome
> others that wish to join, whether just to ask a single question or to hang
> around for the next 20 years. I do see your viewpoint, but I would counter
> that coming here for help (for example) is quite different from calling
> tech support at a vendor.
>

I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore than
I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the first
time.

As I said, the rules can and should apply within the list, but applying
them outside the list is odd and wreaks of authoritarianism.

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-09-14T14:55:42Z

Yes. They can. The people who make the majority of the contributions to the
> software can decide what happens, because without them there is no
> software. If you want to spend 20 years of your life
>

So everyone who moderates this group and that will be part of the CoC
committee will have had to have dedicated their life of pg?

Sure, they own the servers, they make the rules. I get it. I'm not entirely
opposed to it, even if I think it's silly to ram something down the rest of
the groups throats.

Jim

PS: Also, what's with the personal replies? If you don't want to say what
you want to the whole group, I don't really have an interest in talking to
you personally.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-09-14T14:57:09Z

>
> Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established this Code
> of Conduct for community interaction and participation in the project’s
> work and the community at large." basically says?
>

No? What's the "community at large"? To me that sounds like "all
interactions" whether or not they're about postgres.

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

David Wall <d.wall@computer.org> — 2018-09-14T14:59:37Z

On 9/14/18 7:52 AM, James Keener wrote:
>
> I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore 
> than I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for 
> the first time.
>
> As I said, the rules can and should apply within the list, but 
> applying them outside the list is odd and wreaks of authoritarianism.
>
> Jim
In the 20 years I've been using PG, I've not noted any bizarre "list 
speech" except this discussion that suggests others should monitor 
people's behavior wherever they are, and report any "infraction" to PG, 
so PG can boot them.  I'm with those who think that idea is 
diametrically opposed to open source's freedom.  What next, monitor what 
apps people are using their DB for and decide if the "community" 
approves of its character or not?

David

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2018-09-14T15:00:21Z

Greetings,

(trimmed to -general, tho I don't know if it'll really help)

* James Keener (jim@jimkeener.com) wrote:
> > To many of us, we absolutely are a community. Remember, there are people
> > here who have been around for 20+ years, of which many have become close
> > friends, having started working on PostgreSQL as a hobby. We have always
> > seen the project as a community of like-minded technologists, and welcome
> > others that wish to join, whether just to ask a single question or to hang
> > around for the next 20 years. I do see your viewpoint, but I would counter
> > that coming here for help (for example) is quite different from calling
> > tech support at a vendor.
> 
> I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore than
> I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the first
> time.

Does the bartender get to kick you out if you get into a fight?  Or if
you're rude or inappropriate towards the waitress?  Yup, doesn't matter
if it's the first time you were in the bar or not.

> As I said, the rules can and should apply within the list, but applying
> them outside the list is odd and wreaks of authoritarianism.

This is more akin to an argument that the bartender can't ban you if you
got into a fight outside the bar- but it falls flat because, yeah,
they can.  Is the bartender likely to ban you because you made one rude
comment or said something on twitter that wasn't about their bar?
Probably not, but it doesn't mean it's not within their right to do so
if they found it particularly concerning (such as threats made against a
regular to the bar or such).

Ultimately, I do tend to agree with the other points made on this thread
that we end up throwing up a lot of 'straw men' attacks and that
analogies tend to not work out too well in the end, but that's part of
why we have a committee made up of reasonable people to consider a
particular complaint and address it, or not, as appropriate.

Thanks!

Stephen

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2018-09-14T15:03:35Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:55 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

>
>
> Yes. They can. The people who make the majority of the contributions to
>> the software can decide what happens, because without them there is no
>> software. If you want to spend 20 years of your life
>>
>
> So everyone who moderates this group and that will be part of the CoC
> committee will have had to have dedicated their life of pg?
>
> Sure, they own the servers, they make the rules. I get it. I'm not
> entirely opposed to it, even if I think it's silly to ram something down
> the rest of the groups throats.
>
> Jim
>
> PS: Also, what's with the personal replies? If you don't want to say what
> you want to the whole group, I don't really have an interest in talking to
> you personally.
>

I've had one off-list personal reply in this thread... from you :-p

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-09-14T15:04:12Z

> > I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore
> than
> > I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the
> first
> > time.
>
> Does the bartender get to kick you out if you get into a fight?  Or if
> you're rude or inappropriate towards the waitress?  Yup, doesn't matter
> if it's the first time you were in the bar or not.
>
>
You're perverting and twisting my argument. Don't do that.

My comment was that I'm not part of the "community" of the bar by simply
walking into the bar; not that the bar has to serve me.

Please try to argue only what's being argued and not what you think you're
reading into my comments.

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Evan Macbeth <evan.macbeth@crunchydata.com> — 2018-09-14T15:05:18Z

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@jimkeener.com> 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@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ilya Kosmodemiansky <ik@dataegret.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>
>>> 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 Travers
>>
>> Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
>> lock-in.
>> http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
>>
>
> --
> 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@crunchydata.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-09-14T15:08:09Z

On 09/14/2018 07:51 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or 
> harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then 
> it becomes our business.
>
>
>>
>>
>>     If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business
>>     and not something the project would get involved in.
>
>     O.k. so this isn't clear (at least to me) within the CoC. I want
>     to make sure I understand. You are saying that if a community
>     member posts on Twitter that they believe gays are going to hell,
>     reporting that to the CoC committee would result in a
>     non-violation UNLESS they referenced postgresql within the post?
>
>
> Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established 
> this Code of Conduct for community interaction and participation in 
> the project’s work and the community at large." basically says?

Honestly, no. At least not to me especially when you consider the 
sentence right after that, "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)."

Based on your clarification, I am feeling better but the language 
doesn't read that way to me.

I wish this was easier but have we considered that all channels that we 
would be concerned with already have CoC's and therefore our CoC is 
fairly powerless? Sure they call them Terms of Use but that's what they 
are, Code of Conducts.

Thanks,

JD

-- 

Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2018-09-14T15:10:18Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:57 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

>
>
>> Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established
>> this Code of Conduct for community interaction and participation in the
>> project’s work and the community at large." basically says?
>>
>
> No? What's the "community at large"? To me that sounds like "all
> interactions" whether or not they're about postgres.
>

That wording has been in the published draft for 18 months, and noone
objected to it that I'm aware of. There will always be people who don't
like some of the wording, much as there are often people who disagree with
the way a patch to the code is written. Sooner or later though, the general
consensus prevails and we have to move on, otherwise nothing will ever get
completed.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-09-14T15:10:21Z

>
> 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.


So because someone doesn't like what I say in a venue 100% separate from
postgres,  I have to subject myself, and waste my time, defending actions
in this (and potentially other groups who would also adopt overly broad
CoC) group.

One of the biggest drivers of plea-bargains for innocent people in the US
justice system is the expense of having to defend yourself. I find that to
be a travesty; why are we duplicating that at a smaller level?

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> — 2018-09-14T15:11:10Z

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 15:55 James Keener, <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

>
>
> Yes. They can. The people who make the majority of the contributions to
>> the software can decide what happens, because without them there is no
>> software. If you want to spend 20 years of your life
>>
>
> So everyone who moderates this group and that will be part of the CoC
> committee will have had to have dedicated their life of pg?
>

No. The core developers get to decide the policy and who is best to enforce
it. It seems fair that the people who have contributed so much get to
decide what goes on in their name.

>
> Sure, they own the servers, they make the rules. I get it. I'm not
> entirely opposed to it, even if I think it's silly to ram something down
> the rest of the groups throats.
>

I agree with you. I'm just fed up with rerunning the same argument every 3
months every time a new CoC update comes out.

PS: Also, what's with the personal replies? If you don't want to say what
> you want to the whole group, I don't really have an interest in talking to
> you personally.
>

Sorry what? I replied offlist to your offlist reply to my onlist post,
since I assumed you had decided (correctly) that this was hardly the sort
of discussion that we should be clogging up other people's mailboxes with.

Geoff

>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2018-09-14T15:12:52Z

Greetings,

* James Keener (jim@jimkeener.com) wrote:
> > > I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore
> > than
> > > I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the
> > first
> > > time.
> >
> > Does the bartender get to kick you out if you get into a fight?  Or if
> > you're rude or inappropriate towards the waitress?  Yup, doesn't matter
> > if it's the first time you were in the bar or not.
>
> You're perverting and twisting my argument. Don't do that.

I was trying to follow your analogy.  My apologies that it's not a great
one, I raised that same concern in the part of my email you omitted.

> My comment was that I'm not part of the "community" of the bar by simply
> walking into the bar; not that the bar has to serve me.
> 
> Please try to argue only what's being argued and not what you think you're
> reading into my comments.

The point I was making is that these lists are more like the bar and the
list manager like the bartender.  Yes, actions outside of the lists can
impact if someone's allowed to participate on these lists.  There's, of
course, a test of reasonableness and things like disagreements about
political views expressed outside of these lists aren't likely to make
the CoC feel that someone isn't appropriate for participation, even if a
complaint is made, but that doesn't mean that only actions on the list
are considered.

(note that I'm not part of the CoC, nor core, this is my expression of
how I feel things should be, as a member of this community)

Thanks!

Stephen

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-14T15:21:59Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:14 PM Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>>
>> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
>>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
>>> the comments in this thread; see
>>>
>>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>>
>>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>>
>>
>> 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 is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has
>> no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full
>> stop.
>>
>
> I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...
>
> I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other
> software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they
> become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices, then
> they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we should have
> every right to sanction them by preventing them participating in our
> project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate.
>

 Actually, the easier case here is not being abusive to MySQL users, as the
code of conduct really doesn't clearly cover that anyway.  The easier case
is where two people have a feud and one person carries on a harassment
campaign over various forms of social media.  The current problem is:

1.  The current code of conduct is not clear as to whether terms of
service/community standards of, say, Reddit, supersede or not, and
2.  The community has to act (even if it is includes behavior at a
conference which has its own code of conduct)

So I think the addition is both over inclusive and under inclusive.   It is
over inclusive because it invites a certain group of (mostly American)
people to pick fights (not saying this is all Americans).  And it is under
inclusive because there are cases where the code of conduct *should* be
employed when behavior includes behavior at events which might have their
own codes of conduct.

On the other side, consider someone carrying on a low-grade harassment
campaign against another community member at a series of conferences where
each conference may not amount to a real actionable concern but where the
pattern as a whole might.  There's the under inclusive bit.

So I don't like this clause because I think it invites problems and doesn't
solve issues.
-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-14T15:24:11Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:16 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> [ Let's try to trim this discussion to just -general, please ]
>
> Robert Eckhardt <reckhardt@pivotal.io> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
> > <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers 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 <
> http://postgresql.org>
> >>>> infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that
> takes
> >>>> precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
> >> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world,
> for
> >> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as
> 'community
> >> member' has no strict definition.
>
> > I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> > it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> > moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> > people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> Actually, that addition was in response to concerns that the previous
> version didn't delimit the intended scope of the document *at all*.
> So I would say it's more restricted now than the previous version.
>
> I feel that most of the concerns being raised today are straw men.
> If the PG lists were a place for political discussion, there'd be
> valid points to worry about as to whether a CoC might be used to
> stifle free speech.  But every example that's been given has been
> not merely off-topic but wildly so, so I don't find the discussion
> to be very realistic.
>

If the code of conduct limited conduct that related to postgresql.org
infrastructure, I would agree.  This one explicitly includes all kinds of
interactions which are beyond that.

I assume "all interaction between members" could include having a few beers
at a pub, or being in an argument over the scope of human rights on
facebook, and I think there are people who will read it that way.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-14T15:36:43Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:51 PM Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2018 07:36 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:21 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
>>>>> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
>>>>> appear
>>>>> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
>>>>> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
>>>>> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
>>>>> option.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as
>>>> reports and details of reports are to be kept confidential.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that the
>>> attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
>>> about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence
>>> opposing viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but an attacker can do that now. Having the CoC doesn't change
>> anything there, though it does give us a framework to deal with it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
>>>>> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the
>>>>> mailing
>>>>> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the
>>>>> list.
>>>>> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
>>>> interact.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the time.
>>> Baring specific
>>> agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim
>>> responsibility of my
>>> personal business?
>>>
>>
>> If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or
>> harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then it
>> becomes our business.
>>
>> If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and not
>> something the project would get involved in.
>>
>>
>> O.k. so this isn't clear (at least to me) within the CoC. I want to make
>> sure I understand. You are saying that if a community member posts on
>> Twitter that they believe gays are going to hell, reporting that to the CoC
>> committee would result in a non-violation UNLESS they referenced postgresql
>> within the post?
>>
>
> Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established this Code
> of Conduct for community interaction and participation in the project’s
> work and the community at large." basically says?
>
> And in the end, a broad scope is required to some extent.

I want to be clear about where my concern and objection is:

1.  I think PostgreSQL, as an international project with people from many
different walks of life and different cultures needs to stay out of culture
war topics or assigning truth values to political viewpoints to the extent
absolutely possible.  We do this today and we must continue to do this.
2.  Compared to the rest of the world, people from my culture (the US) have
a tendency to take disagreements regarding political policies, social
theories, etc. personally and see abuse/attack where mere disagreement was
present.  People making complaints aren't necessarily acting in bad faith.
3.  If we don't set the expectation ahead of time that we remain
pluralistic in terms of political philosophy, culture, then it is way too
easy to end up in a situation where people are bringing up bad press for
failing to kick out people who disagree with them.

Like it or not there are precedents for this in the open source community,
such as the dismissal of Brendan Eich, and in an international project with
developers from all kinds of cultures with different views on deeply
divisive issues, such conflicts could hurt our community.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> — 2018-09-14T16:23:50Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> [ Let's try to trim this discussion to just -general, please ]
>
> Robert Eckhardt <reckhardt@pivotal.io> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
> > <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/14/18 1:31 AM, Chris Travers 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 <
> http://postgresql.org>
> >>>> infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that
> takes
> >>>> precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
> >> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world,
> for
> >> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as
> 'community
> >> member' has no strict definition.
>
> > I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> > it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> > moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> > people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> Actually, that addition was in response to concerns that the previous
> version didn't delimit the intended scope of the document *at all*.
> So I would say it's more restricted now than the previous version.
>
> I feel that most of the concerns being raised today are straw men.
> If the PG lists were a place for political discussion, there'd be
> valid points to worry about as to whether a CoC might be used to
> stifle free speech.  But every example that's been given has been
> not merely off-topic but wildly so, so I don't find the discussion
> to be very realistic.
>

Are people who simply post on -general the occasional help going to be held
to the same standard (as impractical as that probably would be) as those
who are members of the committee or core?

Particularly for the those who are the "face" of the organization (and that
doesn't just mean core members or committers) the policy should not limit
itself to "interaction[s] between community members" and the sentence
should be, IMO, adjusted to loosen the "where" while tightening the "who".

Beyond that I don't object to writing out explicitly the option to consider
"external" activity - I doubt it will matter in practice and if the
situation is severe enough that it does then core could do what they want
anyway and deal with the fallout whether a CoC exists or whatever its
contents.  I do not believe that, for the typical community member with a
low profile, this will ever come into play.

David J.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> — 2018-09-14T17:14:30Z

On 09/14/2018 09:42 AM, Dave Page wrote:

> There are some fuzzy edges I guess (e.g. Slack), but in my mind it's always
> been anyone who participates in any of the projects communications channels.

Then you Sir are an evil ter'rist member of isis because your spoken
words are carried by the same air in the same atmosphere as theirs.
Please stand by while the black helicopters are being dispatched to your
current location, you will be shot in the face and dropped in the ocean
shortly.

Have a nice day
-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2018-09-14T17:14:38Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> 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

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> — 2018-09-14T17:31:48Z

On 09/14/2018 12:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

> 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.

So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
people access to postgresql community support channel?  "Because
somebody who may or may not be the same person, allegedly said something
somewhere that some other tweet disagreed with on faceplant"?

Great plan if you do for-pay postgresql support for the living.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Lee Hachadoorian <lee.hachadoorian+l@gmail.com> — 2018-09-14T17:38:39Z

While agreeing that there are good arguments that we are a "community" in a
prescriptive sense, I don't think the discussion about whether we
constitute a community is relevant. For at least 25 years "community" has
been applied to virtually any group of people, much to the chagrin of those
such as community organizers and members of religious and intentional
communities who prefer to restrict its usage to a prescriptive sense.

Regarding treating conduct as a matter of "professionalism" rather than
"community", possibly all of the examples offered in the section
Inclusivity and Appropriate Conduct--thing such as personal attacks and
negative comments, threats of violence, and unwelcome sexual attention--do
strike me as unprofessional conduct, although these behaviors have
frequently been tolerated in *many* professional settings. (This is not
even close to being a uniquely tech problem. I could list the industries,
but it would basically be cutting and pasting the list of NAICS codes.)

The CoC will have largely the same meaning if "community" is replaced by
"users and developers" in most places. I do *not* suggest we do so, (a) the
word "community" as used in the document is at this point common usage, (b)
it will be uglier prose, and (c) there would sometimes need to be
additional verbose clarification as to whether it meant "individual users
and developers" or "users and developers as a collective body", and
sometimes it even appears to mean "the Spirit of PosgreSQL". (That last
might be an exaggeration.)

The question of when two or more "users or developers" interacting outside
our common purpose is worthy of the attention of the CoC committee--e.g.
direct email between members, two people at a bar after a conference--is a
legitimate concern, but I do not think a clear line can be decided
beforehand. Someone who received a direct, insulting or threatening email
from someone else on this particular thread that did *not* get distributed
to the list, and does *not* reference this conversation at all, could
reasonably initiate a CoC complaint even though the harassing behavior did
not make use of PG infrastructure. Two long-time PG developers who become
friends, and have been friends for many years in a way that goes far beyond
their PG activities, should not initiate a CoC complaint, or have their
complaint taken seriously by the committee, if they get into a screaming
fight at a family barbecue over one of them serving soda to the other's
kid. There's a lot of gray area in the middle that I think cannot be
resolved ahead of time, but gray areas don't preclude a good faith attempt
to cover some kinds of "outside" interactions.

I do agree, however, that the language "community at large" is somewhat
vague. The phrase is only used once, and is pretty much dropped in the next
sentence which reverts to discussing "interactions between community
members". I can't tell whether it could mean (from most to least
restrictive) (a) someone who is considering adopting PG (so not already a
user or developer) and asks a question online, in which case the phrase
"community at large" is merely meant to forestall an argument about whether
a non-user is a "community member", (b) someone PG-adjacent, such as a
vendor for a competing product at a conference, who is harassed by a PG
booster, or (c) literally everyone.

Best,
--Lee

-- 
Lee Hachadoorian
Assistant Professor of Instruction, Geography and Urban Studies
Assistant Director, Professional Science Master's in GIS
Temple University

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2018-09-14T17:46:54Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
> So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
> people access to postgresql community support channel?

Yes.

> "Because
> somebody who may or may not be the same person, allegedly said something
> somewhere that some other tweet disagreed with on faceplant"?
>
> Great plan if you do for-pay postgresql support for the living.

You can make your own conclusions about my motivations, just as I'll
make my own conclusions about yours. I'm not going to engage with you
on either, though.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> — 2018-09-14T18:06:32Z

On 09/14/2018 12:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
>> people access to postgresql community support channel?
> 
> Yes.

A question to TPTBs, then: once The Great Plan is implemented, will I be
automagically unsubscribed from all postgres lists because I did not
explicitly agree to abide by The Rules And Regulations back when I
susbscribed?

Personally I would like that. Others might prefer an invitation to
unsubscribe or forever hold their peace, I could live with that too, but
I believe explicit opt-ins are preferable to opt-outs.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2018-09-14T18:10:11Z

Greetings,

* Dimitri Maziuk (dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu) wrote:
> On 09/14/2018 12:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >> So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
> >> people access to postgresql community support channel?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> A question to TPTBs, then: once The Great Plan is implemented, will I be
> automagically unsubscribed from all postgres lists because I did not
> explicitly agree to abide by The Rules And Regulations back when I
> susbscribed?

The short answer is: probably.  We have been working for a while to
implement a mechanism to get people to explicitly opt-in for certain
things, like having all posts made public, due to GDPR requirements, and
I'm kinda hoping that this gets folded into it.

Thanks!

Stephen

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2018-09-14T18:13:19Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> That wording has been in the published draft for 18 months, and noone
> objected to it that I'm aware of. There will always be people who don't like
> some of the wording, much as there are often people who disagree with the
> way a patch to the code is written. Sooner or later though, the general
> consensus prevails and we have to move on, otherwise nothing will ever get
> completed.

It's not clear to me that there IS a general consensus here.  It looks
to me like the unelected core team got together and decided to impose
a vaguely-worded code of conduct on a vaguely-defined group of people
covering not only their work on PostgreSQL but also their entire life.
It is not difficult to imagine that someone's private life might
include "behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into
disrepute."

However, I also don't think it matters very much.  The Code of Conduct
Committee is going to consist of small number of people -- at least
four, perhaps a few more.  But there are hundreds of people involved
on the PostgreSQL mailing lists, maybe thousands.  If the Code of
Conduct Committee, or the core team, believes that it can impose on a
very large group of people, all of whom are volunteers, some set of
rules with which they don't agree, it's probably going to find out
pretty quickly that it is mistaken.  If people from that large group
get banned for behavior which is perceived by other members of that
large group to be legitimate, then there will be a ferocious backlash.
Nobody wants to see people who are willing to contribute driven away
from the project, and anyone we drive away without a really good
reason will find some other project that welcomes their participation.
So the only thing that the Code of Conduct Committee is likely to be
able to do in practice is admonish people to be nicer (which is
probably a good thing) and punish really egregious conduct, especially
when committed by people who aren't involved enough that their absence
will be keenly felt.

In practice, therefore, democracy is going to win out.  That's both
good and bad.  It's good because nobody wants a CoC witch-hunt, and
it's bad because there's probably some behavior which legitimately
deserves censure and will escape it.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-14T18:17:50Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:47 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu>
> wrote:
> > So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
> > people access to postgresql community support channel?
>
> Yes.
>
> > "Because
> > somebody who may or may not be the same person, allegedly said something
> > somewhere that some other tweet disagreed with on faceplant"?
> >
> > Great plan if you do for-pay postgresql support for the living.
>
> You can make your own conclusions about my motivations, just as I'll
> make my own conclusions about yours. I'm not going to engage with you
> on either, though.
>

With regard to the  concerns about authoritarianism, I have to defend the
Code of Conduct here.

It's not anything of the above.  The PostgreSQL project has a pretty good
track record of ensuring that people can participate across boundaries of
culture, ethnicity, political ideology (which is always informed by culture
and ethnicity), and the like.  On the whole I trust the committee to make
sound judgments.

The thing is, yes it is scary that someone might be effectively denied
access to commons based on false accusations, but it is also concerning
that people might be driven away from commons by aggressive harassment (on
or off list) or the like.  The code of conduct is a welcome step in that
goal.  I think we should trust long-standing communities with a track
record of being generally cultivating access to the commons with decisions
which foster that.   The fact is, at least I would hope we all agree that

This is basic governance.  Communities require arbitration and management
of the economic commons we build together and this is a part of that.  I am
pretty sure that's why the expansive wording was included.  And I support
the right of the committee to act even for off-list behavior when it is
appropriate to do so.  That part, I am not questioning.  I think that's
important.

So I think a lot of the hysteria misses the point.  We have good people.
We have a generally good track record of getting along.  We have a track
record of not being mean to eachother because of differences in political,
social, religious, etc. belief.  The committee as a custodian of this
community can't really take the hard sides on divisive issues that we might
expect in, say, an American corporation like Mozilla or Google.  I think
people who worry about this don't get the weight of responsibility that
will be placed on such individuals to support a breathtakingly diverse
international project and keep the peace, giving people room for civic
engagement even on divisive issues.

And frankly I am probably being paranoid here though I find paranoia is a
good thing when it comes to care of databases and computer systems.  But I
do worry about the interactions between the PostgreSQL community and the
larger world with things worded this way.

> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2018-09-14T18:21:02Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Personally I would like that. Others might prefer an invitation to
> unsubscribe or forever hold their peace, I could live with that too, but
> I believe explicit opt-ins are preferable to opt-outs.

I think that it's a legitimate position to be opposed to a CoC like
this. I also think it's legitimate to feel so strongly about it, on
philosophical or political grounds, that you are compelled to avoid
participating while subject to the CoC. FWIW, the latter position
seems rather extreme to me personally, but I still respect it.

In all sincerity, if you're compelled to walk away from participating
in mailing list discussions on a point of principle, then I wish you
well. That is your right.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> — 2018-09-14T18:22:58Z

On 9/14/18, 12:50 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

    On 09/14/2018 07:41 AM, James Keener wrote:
    > > Community is people who joined it
    >
    > We're not a "community."

    I do not think you are going to get very many people on board with that 
    argument. As anyone who knows me will attest I am one of the most 
    contrarian members of this community but I still agree that it is a 
    community.

    JD

As Bill Clinton said in another context, "it all depends on the meaning of 'community'".  'Community' is a very tricky word with uncertain boundaries and variable degrees of belonging to it.  Moreover, it's reciprocal: 'you' and the 'community' may have different ideas of whether or how you belong. Rules in communities are usually tacit. You might almost want to say that if you need to write rules you no longer have a community.  Writing community rules is a very and probably hopeless endeavor.

For quite a while the word 'community' has been grossly overused and has often been invoked as a way of creating a sense of community where there is reason to doubt whether the thing is there in the first place. 

'Civil' and 'civility' are more modest words with more modest goals that are perhaps easier to capture in language. When it comes to a code of civil conduct, less is more. If you use more than the words of the ten commandments you almost certainly have gone too far. I have yet to see a posting on this list that would suggest an urgent need for trying to regulate what contributors say or how they say it.  

    -- 
    Command Prompt, Inc. || https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__the.postgres.company_&d=DwICaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=RJwS1VI8elhlnCutR_Pulg0oUzeSh5KpHQs0EJSdr04&s=3RBPPMk6HiBPEHYfzKDsP-DZxFvRs5NCYc9LKGXjpdE&e= || @cmdpromptinc
    ***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
    PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
    Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__postgresconf.org&d=DwICaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=RJwS1VI8elhlnCutR_Pulg0oUzeSh5KpHQs0EJSdr04&s=ZiPaHw5gfja9OJeMGlTHieS-paSoyTHYC35rTgkwv_U&e=
    *****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> — 2018-09-14T18:23:18Z

On 09/14/2018 01:17 PM, Chris Travers wrote:

> And frankly I am probably being paranoid here though I find paranoia is a
> good thing when it comes to care of databases and computer systems.  But I
> do worry about the interactions between the PostgreSQL community and the
> larger world with things worded this way.

"The issue isn't whether you're paranoid, it's whether you're paranoid
enough"

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-09-14T20:17:39Z

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> It's not clear to me that there IS a general consensus here.  It looks
> to me like the unelected core team got together and decided to impose
> a vaguely-worded code of conduct on a vaguely-defined group of people
> covering not only their work on PostgreSQL but also their entire life.

There's been quite a lot of input, from quite a lot of people, dating
back at least as far as a well-attended session at PGCon 2016.  I find
it quite upsetting to hear accusations that core is imposing this out
of nowhere.  From my perspective, we're responding to a real need
voiced by other people, not so much by us.

> However, I also don't think it matters very much.

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.

It's also worth reminding people that this is v1.0 of the CoC document.
We plan to revisit it in a year or so, and thereafter as needed, to
improve anything that's causing problems or not working well.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> — 2018-09-15T01:52:40Z

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:18:12 +0000
Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> wrote:

> I have followed this list for a couple of years, have benefited
> several times from quick and helpful advice,  and wonder whether all
> this code of conduct stuff is a solution in search of a problem. 

No, it's not. Talk to anyone outside the mainstream in a way that it
would be costly, in money or safety, for them to proclaim their
differences from the rooftops.

> My
> grandchildren were taught that “please and thank you sound so
> nice .... manners are important, be polite” sung to the tune of Frère
> Jacques. They don’t always remember it,  but a longer poem wouldn’t
> help.

And indeed, if everybody were taught these things and lived by them,
including not saying bad stuff about groups of people, not making jokes
about groups of people, and calling people what they want to be called,
there would be no need at all.

But there are people who think that a Geek gathering is a really good
place to grope females. There are people who have no problem piling on
the unfortunate, perhaps because their misfortunes are God's punishment
for their sins (then why not be nice and leave the punishment to God?).
There are those who just love to cause trouble. There are really bad
people out there, and we need to define what's allowed and what's not
so these people can't cause damage, and that's why we have CoCs.

As far as behavior in other venues, I'm sure there are people out there
who would object to some of the stuff in some of my books. I've tried
my best to make my books unhurtful, but truth be told, if my books
(which don't name or resemble anyone on this list) run afoul of the
CoC, I'd have to resign from the list. I suggest treading very
carefully when discussing, in the Postgres CoC, peoples' behavior in
other venues.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> — 2018-09-15T01:57:46Z

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:10:38 -0400
James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

> > I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> >
> > it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> > moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> > people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and
> > Twitter.

The preceding's pretty simple. An attacker goes after an individual,
presumably without provocation and/or asymetrically. The attacked
person is on this mailing list. IMHO this attacker must choose between
continuing his attacks, and belonging to the Postgres community.

What's tougher is the person who attacks groups of people.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> — 2018-09-15T02:04:48Z

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:19:59 -0700
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> 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?
> 
> JD

You know the member inspected by the committee is free to start an
alternative Postgres community, if things get that bad. A LUG I once
founded started getting too abusive in their email, so I started a
second LUG, where people like me could communicate without what we
considered overt extraneous bullshit.

If this committee truly becomes authoritative, as perceived by a
significant portion of membership, the organization will fork.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> — 2018-09-15T02:47:04Z

The preceding's pretty simple. An attacker goes after an individual,
> presumably without provocation and/or asymetrically. The attacked
> person is on this mailing list. IMHO this attacker must choose between
> continuing his attacks, and belonging to the Postgres community.
>
> What's tougher is the person who attacks groups of people.
>
>
The preceding's pretty simple. An "attacker" voices their political opinions
or other unorthodoxy or unpopular stance, but in no way directs it at the
postgres user base or on a postgres list. The "attacked"
person is on this mailing list. IMHO this "attacker" must choose between
continuing to voice their opinion, and belonging to the Postgres community.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-15T06:44:10Z

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 4:47 AM James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

>
>
> The preceding's pretty simple. An attacker goes after an individual,
>> presumably without provocation and/or asymetrically. The attacked
>> person is on this mailing list. IMHO this attacker must choose between
>> continuing his attacks, and belonging to the Postgres community.
>>
>> What's tougher is the person who attacks groups of people.
>>
>>
> The preceding's pretty simple. An "attacker" voices their political
> opinions
> or other unorthodoxy or unpopular stance, but in no way directs it at the
> postgres user base or on a postgres list. The "attacked"
> person is on this mailing list. IMHO this "attacker" must choose between
> continuing to voice their opinion, and belonging to the Postgres community.
>

The protection there is a culturally diverse code of conduct committee who
can then understand the relationship between politics and culture.  And
just to note, you can't solve problems of abuse by adopting mechanistically
applied rules.

Also a lot of the major commercial players have large teams in areas where
there is a legal right to not face discrimination on the basis of political
opinion.  So I don't see merely expressing an unpopular political opinion
as something the code of conduct committee could ever find actionable, nor
do I think political donations or membership in political or religious
organizations etc would be easy to make actionable.

But I understand the sense of insecurity.  Had I not spent time working in
Asia and Europe, my concerns would be far more along these lines.  As it
is, I don't think the code of conduct committee will allow themselves to be
used to cause continental splits in the community or to internationalize
the politics of the US.

I think the bigger issue is that our community *will* take flak and
possibly be harmed if there is an expectation set that picking fights in
this way over political opinions is accepted.  Because while I don't see
the current community taking action on the basis of political views, I do
see a problem more generally with how these fights get picked and would
prefer to see some softening of language to protect the community in that
case.  But again, I am probably being paranoid.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Olivier Gautherot <olivier@gautherot.net> — 2018-09-15T13:05:46Z

Dear all,

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:18 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > It's not clear to me that there IS a general consensus here.  It looks
> > to me like the unelected core team got together and decided to impose
> > a vaguely-worded code of conduct on a vaguely-defined group of people
> > covering not only their work on PostgreSQL but also their entire life.
>
> There's been quite a lot of input, from quite a lot of people, dating
> back at least as far as a well-attended session at PGCon 2016.  I find
> it quite upsetting to hear accusations that core is imposing this out
> of nowhere.  From my perspective, we're responding to a real need
> voiced by other people, not so much by us.
>
> > However, I also don't think it matters very much.
>
> 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.
>
> It's also worth reminding people that this is v1.0 of the CoC document.
> We plan to revisit it in a year or so, and thereafter as needed, to
> improve anything that's causing problems or not working well.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>

I must admit that I'm impressed by the huge amount of contributions to this
thread and, to be honest, it is the only one I have witnessed that would
have deserved a CoC. I had a quick look at the proposal and it sounds to me
like the team is trying to handle excesses - as long as no one complains, I
would bet that they won't even chime in.

One thing to keep in mind is this simple definition: "One person's freedom
ends where another's begins" and all the work should go in this direction.
We are all different, have different sensitivities, come from different
cultures where we interpret words in a different way - it's a given, no way
to escape. But we have in common the love of a great piece of software
provided by a very active and efficient community.

Why don't we focus on what unites us, instead of what creates divisions?

Have a peaceful week-end
Olivier

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2018-09-15T15:32:06Z

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 08:44:10AM +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> The protection there is a culturally diverse code of conduct committee who can
> then understand the relationship between politics and culture.  And just to
> note, you can't solve problems of abuse by adopting mechanistically applied
> rules.
> 
> Also a lot of the major commercial players have large teams in areas where
> there is a legal right to not face discrimination on the basis of political
> opinion.  So I don't see merely expressing an unpopular political opinion as
> something the code of conduct committee could ever find actionable, nor do I
> think political donations or membership in political or religious organizations
> etc would be easy to make actionable.

Well, we could all express our unpopular opinions on this channel and
give it a try.  ;-)  I think some have already, and nothing has happened
to them.  With a CoC, I assume that will remain true.

> But I understand the sense of insecurity.  Had I not spent time working in Asia
> and Europe, my concerns would be far more along these lines.  As it is, I don't
> think the code of conduct committee will allow themselves to be used to cause
> continental splits in the community or to internationalize the politics of the
> US.

Agreed, and that is by design.  If anything, the CoC team plus the core
team have even more diversity than the core team alone.

> I think the bigger issue is that our community *will* take flak and possibly be
> harmed if there is an expectation set that picking fights in this way over
> political opinions is accepted.  Because while I don't see the current
> community taking action on the basis of political views, I do see a problem
> more generally with how these fights get picked and would prefer to see some
> softening of language to protect the community in that case.  But again, I am
> probably being paranoid.

Well, before the CoC, anything could have happened since there were no
rules at all about how such problems were handled, or not handled. 

There is a risk that if we adopt a CoC, and nothing happens, and the
committee does nothing, that they will feel like a failure, and get
involved when it was best they did nothing.  I think the CoC tries to
address that, but nothing is perfect.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2018-09-15T15:43:49Z

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 11:32:06AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> There is a risk that if we adopt a CoC, and nothing happens, and the
> committee does nothing, that they will feel like a failure, and get
> involved when it was best they did nothing.  I think the CoC tries to
> address that, but nothing is perfect.

I think this is Parkinson's law:

	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law

We might want to put something in the next draft CoC saying that the
committee is a success if it does nothing.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-09-15T15:50:45Z

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> There is a risk that if we adopt a CoC, and nothing happens, and the
> committee does nothing, that they will feel like a failure, and get
> involved when it was best they did nothing.  I think the CoC tries to
> address that, but nothing is perfect.

Yeah, a busybody CoC committee could do more harm than good.
The way the CoC tries to address that is that the committee can't
initiate action of its own accord: somebody has to bring it a complaint.

Of course, a member of the committee could go out and find a "problem"
and then file a complaint --- but then they'd have to recuse themselves
from dealing with that complaint, so there's an incentive not to.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com> — 2018-09-15T16:11:37Z

How about we just simplify the code of conduct to the following:
Any member in the various PostgreSQL lists is expected to maintain
respect to others and not use foul language. A variation from
the previous sentence shall be considered a violation of the CoC.


On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 11:51 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > There is a risk that if we adopt a CoC, and nothing happens, and the
> > committee does nothing, that they will feel like a failure, and get
> > involved when it was best they did nothing.  I think the CoC tries to
> > address that, but nothing is perfect.
>
> Yeah, a busybody CoC committee could do more harm than good.
> The way the CoC tries to address that is that the committee can't
> initiate action of its own accord: somebody has to bring it a complaint.
>
> Of course, a member of the committee could go out and find a "problem"
> and then file a complaint --- but then they'd have to recuse themselves
> from dealing with that complaint, so there's an incentive not to.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
>

-- 
*Melvin Davidson*
*Maj. Database & Exploration Specialist*
*Universe Exploration Command – UXC*
Employment by invitation only!

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> — 2018-09-15T16:24:38Z

What counts as foul language has changed a great deal in the last two decades.  You could always tie it to what is printable in the New York Times, but that too is changing. I could live with something like “Be considerate, and if you can’t be nice, be at least civil”.

From: Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 11:12 AM
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com>, Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com>, "pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct plan

How about we just simplify the code of conduct to the following:
Any member in the various PostgreSQL lists is expected to maintain
respect to others and not use foul language. A variation from
the previous sentence shall be considered a violation of the CoC.

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 11:51 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us<mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us<mailto:bruce@momjian.us>> writes:
> There is a risk that if we adopt a CoC, and nothing happens, and the
> committee does nothing, that they will feel like a failure, and get
> involved when it was best they did nothing.  I think the CoC tries to
> address that, but nothing is perfect.

Yeah, a busybody CoC committee could do more harm than good.
The way the CoC tries to address that is that the committee can't
initiate action of its own accord: somebody has to bring it a complaint.

Of course, a member of the committee could go out and find a "problem"
and then file a complaint --- but then they'd have to recuse themselves
from dealing with that complaint, so there's an incentive not to.

                        regards, tom lane

--
Melvin Davidson
Maj. Database & Exploration Specialist
Universe Exploration Command – UXC
Employment by invitation only!

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2018-09-15T16:32:14Z

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 04:24:38PM +0000, Martin Mueller wrote:
> What counts as foul language has changed a great deal in the last two decades. 
> You could always tie it to what is printable in the New York Times, but that
> too is changing. I could live with something like “Be considerate, and if you
> can’t be nice, be at least civil”.

I have to admit I am surprised how polite the language is here,
considering how crudely some other open source projects communicate.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Karsten Hilbert <karsten.hilbert@gmx.net> — 2018-09-15T16:33:30Z

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:11:37PM -0400, Melvin Davidson wrote:

> How about we just simplify the code of conduct to the following:
> Any member in the various PostgreSQL lists is expected to maintain
> respect to others and not use foul language. A variation from
> the previous sentence shall be considered a violation of the CoC.

That is, unfortunately, not possible, because "foul language"
is quite definitional to a large extent.

Functioning communities can usually intrinsically develop,
informally agree upon, and pragmatically enforce a workable
definition for themselves.

And often it will be extremely hard to *codify* such working
definitions to even remotely the same degree of success.

Karsten
-- 
GPG  40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6  5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> — 2018-09-15T16:37:41Z

That is quite true: the very high quotient of helpful prose and very low quotient of inappropriate language is striking--much like the TEI list of which I long have been a member, and unlike the MySQL list, which has a non-trivial (though not serious)  boorish component. 

Which makes me say again "Where is the problem that needs solving?"

On 9/15/18, 11:32 AM, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

    On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 04:24:38PM +0000, Martin Mueller wrote:
    > What counts as foul language has changed a great deal in the last two decades. 
    > You could always tie it to what is printable in the New York Times, but that
    > too is changing. I could live with something like “Be considerate, and if you
    > can’t be nice, be at least civil”.
    
    I have to admit I am surprised how polite the language is here,
    considering how crudely some other open source projects communicate.
    
    -- 
      Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__momjian.us&d=DwIDaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=TJILWn2nTs3E72LB1XpPNrNBCTYdMYWcTUevA54MIgM&s=jP360tfk8zSE3PhzhCJ5PSD_h8HnzqLCs4jFe5nUddE&e=
      EnterpriseDB                             https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__enterprisedb.com&d=DwIDaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=TJILWn2nTs3E72LB1XpPNrNBCTYdMYWcTUevA54MIgM&s=EHp2yUxMzSrJsO0jCYJM4dq7m35j69Aec87OEBfXaP8&e=
    
    + As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
    +                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-09-15T18:11:09Z

Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> writes:
> Which makes me say again "Where is the problem that needs solving?"

We've re-litigated that point in each burst of CoC discussion for the
last two-plus years, I think.  But, one more time:

* So far as the mailing lists alone are concerned, we likely don't really
need a CoC; on-list incidents have been pretty few and far between.
However, there *have* been unfortunate incidents at conferences and in
other real-life contexts.  Core has been encouraging conference organizers
to create their own CoCs, but (a) they might want a model to follow;
(b) there needs to be a community-level backstop in case of failure of
a conference to have or enforce a CoC; and (c) conferences aren't the
only point of contact between community members.

* This isn't really directed at people who already participate in our
mailing lists.  The reason for setting up a formal CoC is to reassure
potential new contributors that the Postgres project offers a safe
environment for them.  As has been pointed out before, a lot of people
now feel that some sort of CoC is a minimum requirement for them to
want to deal with a community.  Whether you and I find that a bit too
shrinking-violety isn't relevant; if we want to keep attracting new
participants, we have to get with the program.

Now, the hazard in that of course is that someone will come in and
try to use the CoC mechanism to force the PG community to adopt that
person's standards of conduct.  It'll be up to the CoC committee
(and core, in the case of appeals) to say no, what you're complaining
about is well within this community's normal standards.  That's a
reason why a two-line CoC isn't a good idea; it leaves too much to
be read into it.

Anyway, the short answer here is that we've been debating CoC wording
for more than two years already, and it's time to stop debating and
just get it done.  We're really not going to entertain "let's rewrite
this completely" suggestions at this point.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2018-09-15T23:12:36Z

On 9/14/18 11:21 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> Personally I would like that. Others might prefer an invitation to
>> unsubscribe or forever hold their peace, I could live with that too, but
>> I believe explicit opt-ins are preferable to opt-outs.
> 
> I think that it's a legitimate position to be opposed to a CoC like
> this. I also think it's legitimate to feel so strongly about it, on
> philosophical or political grounds, that you are compelled to avoid
> participating while subject to the CoC. FWIW, the latter position
> seems rather extreme to me personally, but I still respect it.

I understand it.

This:

https://marshmallow.readthedocs.io/en/dev/code_of_conduct.html

caused me to quit using Marshmallow in my projects.

> 
> In all sincerity, if you're compelled to walk away from participating
> in mailing list discussions on a point of principle, then I wish you
> well. That is your right.
> 


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2018-09-15T23:20:56Z

On 9/14/18 11:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> That wording has been in the published draft for 18 months, and noone
>> objected to it that I'm aware of. There will always be people who don't like
>> some of the wording, much as there are often people who disagree with the
>> way a patch to the code is written. Sooner or later though, the general
>> consensus prevails and we have to move on, otherwise nothing will ever get
>> completed.
> 
> It's not clear to me that there IS a general consensus here.  It looks
> to me like the unelected core team got together and decided to impose
> a vaguely-worded code of conduct on a vaguely-defined group of people
> covering not only their work on PostgreSQL but also their entire life.
> It is not difficult to imagine that someone's private life might
> include "behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into
> disrepute."
> 
> However, I also don't think it matters very much.  The Code of Conduct
> Committee is going to consist of small number of people -- at least
> four, perhaps a few more.  But there are hundreds of people involved
> on the PostgreSQL mailing lists, maybe thousands.  If the Code of
> Conduct Committee, or the core team, believes that it can impose on a
> very large group of people, all of whom are volunteers, some set of
> rules with which they don't agree, it's probably going to find out
> pretty quickly that it is mistaken.  If people from that large group
> get banned for behavior which is perceived by other members of that
> large group to be legitimate, then there will be a ferocious backlash.
> Nobody wants to see people who are willing to contribute driven away
> from the project, and anyone we drive away without a really good
> reason will find some other project that welcomes their participation.
> So the only thing that the Code of Conduct Committee is likely to be
> able to do in practice is admonish people to be nicer (which is
> probably a good thing) and punish really egregious conduct, especially
> when committed by people who aren't involved enough that their absence
> will be keenly felt.
> 
> In practice, therefore, democracy is going to win out.  That's both
> good and bad.  It's good because nobody wants a CoC witch-hunt, and
> it's bad because there's probably some behavior which legitimately
> deserves censure and will escape it.
> 

+1

-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> — 2018-09-16T04:00:31Z

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.

> It's also worth reminding people that this is v1.0 of the CoC document.
> We plan to revisit it in a year or so, and thereafter as needed, to
> improve anything that's causing problems or not working well.

+1, At least this means we can address the above if it emerges as a problem

regards
Mark
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-16T10:38:41Z

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 8:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> writes:
> > Which makes me say again "Where is the problem that needs solving?"
>
> We've re-litigated that point in each burst of CoC discussion for the
> last two-plus years, I think.  But, one more time:
>
> * So far as the mailing lists alone are concerned, we likely don't really
> need a CoC; on-list incidents have been pretty few and far between.
> However, there *have* been unfortunate incidents at conferences and in
> other real-life contexts.  Core has been encouraging conference organizers
> to create their own CoCs, but (a) they might want a model to follow;
> (b) there needs to be a community-level backstop in case of failure of
> a conference to have or enforce a CoC; and (c) conferences aren't the
> only point of contact between community members.
>

As a note, the current CoC wording appears to explicitly exempt enforcement
from conferences as long as they have their own CoC (whatever either the
terms or the implementation).  So point b is not resolved at all and under
this there is no community backstop if we take the text at face value.

"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).**" [emphasis mine]

Hence I think it would be better to suggest a more nuanced line, one where
acting on things off list etc is subject to the overall balance of
community interest and an inability of other parties to act.  If the goal
is to give conferences an ability to enforce their own rules, with a
community backstop, then one needs a functional, not merely formal line.
If the goal is a sort of subsidiarity, then such a functional line is
better too.

So I would recommend changing that to "This code of conduct may be applied
to conduct on or off community resources so long as the conduct is related
to the community,  other parties are unable to act, and it is in the
community's interest to apply the this code of conduct."

That more or less explicitly puts the decisions on where and when to apply
it in the hands of the committee, which is probably better than promising a
large scope and then telling new folks "sorry, that isn't covered" after
setting expectations to the contrary.

>
> * This isn't really directed at people who already participate in our
> mailing lists.  The reason for setting up a formal CoC is to reassure
> potential new contributors that the Postgres project offers a safe
> environment for them.  As has been pointed out before, a lot of people
> now feel that some sort of CoC is a minimum requirement for them to
> want to deal with a community.  Whether you and I find that a bit too
> shrinking-violety isn't relevant; if we want to keep attracting new
> participants, we have to get with the program.
>
> Now, the hazard in that of course is that someone will come in and
> try to use the CoC mechanism to force the PG community to adopt that
> person's standards of conduct.  It'll be up to the CoC committee
> (and core, in the case of appeals) to say no, what you're complaining
> about is well within this community's normal standards.  That's a
> reason why a two-line CoC isn't a good idea; it leaves too much to
> be read into it.
>

It's worth noting that in the cases I am concerned about, the CoC committee
would have to decline the complaint.  I am not worried about them acting
badly.  What I am worried about are people getting worked up about
something outside the community when someone who complains gets told no.

>
> Anyway, the short answer here is that we've been debating CoC wording
> for more than two years already, and it's time to stop debating and
> just get it done.  We're really not going to entertain "let's rewrite
> this completely" suggestions at this point.
>

Agreed on not rewriting completely.  However the particular recent addition
I am objecting to is relatively troubling for a reason.

Personally, I felt like we were assured when this process started that a
code of conduct would regulate on-infrastructure behavior only.  Now, for
reasons you have said, that scope is too narrow and I understand that.
Those reasons and the issues behind them have been discussed from the
beginning, and so I don't really object to broadening the scope to things
like campaigns of personal harassment including in real life, etc.  I
recognize that to be totally necessary.

However, the addition goes way beyond that and it feels like a full
reversal of a promise that was made to the community much earlier to try to
keep the code of conduct from something that could be used to apply
pressure from outside to get rid of community members for activity that is
not related to PostgreSQL (in particular, unrelated political involvement,
opinions, and participation).

If you aren't open to rewriting even that one sentence, I hope maybe you
can leave that sentence off and assert that it is up to the Code of Conduct
community to develop the scope of application based on actual complaints
and circumstances.

Again for reference the only change I am objecting to is the addition of "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)."  I don't think that sentence solves the
problems you are trying to solve, and I think it creates new ones.

However I have said my piece.  Unless there are replies that provide
something new for me to add, I won't continue arguing over that from here.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Code of Conduct plan

Stephen Cook <sclists@gmail.com> — 2018-09-16T12:07:35Z

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

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> — 2018-09-16T12:52:34Z

As long as subscribers to the list or attendants at a conference do not violate explicit or implicit house rules, what business does Postgres have worrying about what they do or say elsewhere?  Some version of an 'all-of-life' clause may be appropriate to the Marines or  federal judges, but it strikes me as overreach for a technical listserv whose subject is a particular relational database. The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good advice in this context. 

On 9/16/18, 7:08 AM, "Stephen Cook" <sclists@gmail.com> wrote:

    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

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> — 2018-09-16T16:28:39Z

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 16:12:36 -0700
Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:

> https://marshmallow.readthedocs.io/en/dev/code_of_conduct.html

Personally I don't give a toss about politolosophy, I think idiocy, no matter how well-meaning, is still idiocy and is probably contaguious via "normalization of idiocy". Since "god won't save us from well-meaning people" and "you can't overcome stupid", the only rational option left is not to march with them.

-- 
Dmitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu>

RE: Code of Conduct plan

farjad.farid <farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> — 2018-09-16T19:35:06Z

Dear All,

If we allow friendship and fellowship to flourish everyone benefits. That doesn't mean we should drop our standards or quality. 

It is worth remembering that all human beings are social animals(basic logic) so even the most logical person could get offended and turn off from contributing to overall consultations, we can say everything with moderation and consult with compassion. 

Say your piece but don't insist on it, we are all busy, repetitive arguments over the same points is a turn off for most people. Especially for a community based projects. 

Personally I have no problem with a code conduct. After all most people agree that, even a mundane thing like crossing a road needs rules, 
so something as complex as human interactions also needs rules. 

That's my two cent worth of contribution. 

Best Regards


Farjad Farid

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> — 2018-09-17T03:35:58Z

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:00:31 +1200
Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:


> a SJW agenda. 

>  the angry militant left.

Some people just can't stop themselves.

Which is a big reason for CoCs.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> — 2018-09-17T15:11:36Z

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 +0000
Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> wrote:

> ... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good advice in this context. 

Moderated mailing lists ain't been broken all these years, therefore they need fixing. Obviously.

-- 
Dmitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2018-09-17T15:27:48Z

On 09/17/2018 08:11 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 +0000
> Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
>> ... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good advice in this context.
> Moderated mailing lists ain't been broken all these years, therefore they need fixing. Obviously.

Folks,

At this point it is important to accept that the CoC is happening. We 
aren't going to stop that. The goal now is to insure a CoC that is 
equitable for all community members and that has appropriate 
accountability. At hand it appears that major concern is the CoC trying 
to be authoritative outside of community channels. As well as wording 
that is a bit far reaching. Specifically I think people's main concern 
is these two sentences:

"To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community 
interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community at 
large. 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)."

If we can constructively provide feedback about those two sentences, 
great (or constructive feedback on other areas of the CoC). If we can't 
then this thread needs to stop. It has become unproductive.

My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching authority 
that .Org does not have the right to enforce and that it is also largely 
redundant because we allow that the idea that if another CoC exists, 
then ours doesn't apply. Well every single major collaboration channel 
we would be concerned with (including something like Blogger) has its 
own CoC within its Terms of use. That effectively neuters the PostgreSQL 
CoC within places like Slack, Facebook, Twitter etc...

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-17T15:39:20Z

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:28 PM Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
wrote:

> On 09/17/2018 08:11 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 +0000
> Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
>
> ... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good advice in this context.
>
> Moderated mailing lists ain't been broken all these years, therefore they need fixing. Obviously.
>
>
> Folks,
>
> At this point it is important to accept that the CoC is happening. We
> aren't going to stop that. The goal now is to insure a CoC that is
> equitable for all community members and that has appropriate
> accountability. At hand it appears that major concern is the CoC trying to
> be authoritative outside of community channels. As well as wording that is
> a bit far reaching. Specifically I think people's main concern is these two
> sentences:
>
> "To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community
> interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community at
> large. 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)."
>

Exactly.  And actually the first sentence is not new.  The second one is a
real problem though.  I am going to try one last time at an additional
alternative.

" To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community
interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community at
large.   This code of conduct covers all interaction between community
members on the postgresql.org infrastructure.  Conduct outside the
postgresql.org infrastructure may call the Code of Conduct committee to act
as long as the interaction (or interaction pattern) is community-related,
other parties are unable to act, and the Code of Conduct committee
determines that it is in the best interest of the community to apply this
Code of Conduct."

This solves a number of important problems.

1.  It provides a backstop (as Tom Lane suggested was needed) against a
conference refusing to enforce their own code of conduct in a way the
community finds acceptable while the current wording does not provide any
backstop as long as there is a code of conduct for a conference.
2.  It provides a significant barrier to applying the code of conduct to,
say, political posts on, say, Twitter.
3.  It preserves the ability of the Code of Conduct Committee to act in the
case where someone takes a pattern of harassment off-list and
off-infrastructure.  And it avoids arguing whether Facebook's Community
Standards constitute "another Code of Conduct that takes precedence."

>
> If we can constructively provide feedback about those two sentences, great
> (or constructive feedback on other areas of the CoC). If we can't then this
> thread needs to stop. It has become unproductive.
>
> My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching authority
> that .Org does not have the right to enforce and that it is also largely
> redundant because we allow that the idea that if another CoC exists, then
> ours doesn't apply. Well every single major collaboration channel we would
> be concerned with (including something like Blogger) has its own CoC within
> its Terms of use. That effectively neuters the PostgreSQL CoC within places
> like Slack, Facebook, Twitter etc...
>

Fascinating that this would, on its face, not apply to a harassment
campaign carried out over twitter, but it would apply to a few comments
made over drinks at a bar.

>
> JD
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
> ***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
> PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
> Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
> *****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> — 2018-09-17T15:57:10Z

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 08:27:48 -0700
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> On 09/17/2018 08:11 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 +0000
> > Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> wrote:
> >  
> >> ... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical
> >> grounds. "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good
> >> advice in this context.  
> > Moderated mailing lists ain't been broken all these years,
> > therefore they need fixing. Obviously.  
> 
> Folks,
> 
> At this point it is important to accept that the CoC is happening. We 
> aren't going to stop that. The goal now is to insure a CoC that is 
> equitable for all community members and that has appropriate 
> accountability. At hand it appears that major concern is the CoC
> trying to be authoritative outside of community channels. As well as
> wording that is a bit far reaching. Specifically I think people's
> main concern is these two sentences:
> 
> "To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community 
> interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community
> at large. 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)."
> 
> If we can constructively provide feedback about those two sentences, 
> great (or constructive feedback on other areas of the CoC). If we
> can't then this thread needs to stop. It has become unproductive.
> 
> My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching
> authority that .Org does not have the right to enforce and that it is
> also largely redundant because we allow that the idea that if another
> CoC exists, then ours doesn't apply. Well every single major
> collaboration channel we would be concerned with (including something
> like Blogger) has its own CoC within its Terms of use. That
> effectively neuters the PostgreSQL CoC within places like Slack,
> Facebook, Twitter etc...

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Whatever CoC is decided upon, it
will be updated later. If it's easier, for now, to pass it with
enforcement WITHIN the Postgres community, why not do that? If, later
on, we get instances of people retaliating, in other venues, for
positions taken in Postgres, that can be handled when it comes up.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> — 2018-09-17T16:07:26Z

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:39:20 +0200
Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:


> Exactly.  And actually the first sentence is not new.  The second one
> is a real problem though.  I am going to try one last time at an
> additional alternative.
> 
> " To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community
> interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community
> at large.   This code of conduct covers all interaction between
> community members on the postgresql.org infrastructure.  Conduct
> outside the postgresql.org infrastructure may call the Code of
> Conduct committee to act as long as the interaction (or interaction
> pattern) is community-related, other parties are unable to act, and
> the Code of Conduct committee determines that it is in the best
> interest of the community to apply this Code of Conduct."

Chris,

Would you be satisfied with the CoC if the current 2nd paragraph of the
Introduction were replaced by the paragraph you wrote above?

 
SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> — 2018-09-17T16:17:13Z

> On Sep 17, 2018, at 4:57 PM, Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 08:27:48 -0700
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> At this point it is important to accept that the CoC is happening. We 
>> aren't going to stop that. The goal now is to insure a CoC that is 
>> equitable for all community members and that has appropriate 
>> accountability. At hand it appears that major concern is the CoC
>> trying to be authoritative outside of community channels. As well as
>> wording that is a bit far reaching. Specifically I think people's
>> main concern is these two sentences:
>> 
>> "To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community 
>> interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community
>> at large. 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)."
>> 
>> If we can constructively provide feedback about those two sentences, 
>> great (or constructive feedback on other areas of the CoC). If we
>> can't then this thread needs to stop. It has become unproductive.
>> 
>> My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching
>> authority that .Org does not have the right to enforce and that it is
>> also largely redundant because we allow that the idea that if another
>> CoC exists, then ours doesn't apply. Well every single major
>> collaboration channel we would be concerned with (including something
>> like Blogger) has its own CoC within its Terms of use. That
>> effectively neuters the PostgreSQL CoC within places like Slack,
>> Facebook, Twitter etc...
> 
> The perfect is the enemy of the good. Whatever CoC is decided upon, it
> will be updated later. If it's easier, for now, to pass it with
> enforcement WITHIN the Postgres community, why not do that? If, later
> on, we get instances of people retaliating, in other venues, for
> positions taken in Postgres, that can be handled when it comes up.

I'll note that a fairly common situation with mailing lists I've seen is people
taking an on-list disagreement off-list and being offensive there. I've not
had that happen to me personally on the pgsql-* lists, but I have had it
happen on other technical mailing lists. That harassment would be "outside
of community channels".

A CoC that doesn't cover that situation (or it's equivalent on IRC) isn't
going to be particularly easy to apply.

Whether the CoC can be applied or not isn't necessarily the most important
thing about it - it's more a statement of beliefs - but if the situation comes
up where someone is behaving unacceptably via IRC or email and "we"
say that we aren't interested in helping, or our hands are tied, because
"off-list" communication isn't covered by the CoC that's likely to lead to
a loud and public mess.

Cheers,
  Steve

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-17T17:15:28Z

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:08 PM Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:39:20 +0200
> Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Exactly.  And actually the first sentence is not new.  The second one
> > is a real problem though.  I am going to try one last time at an
> > additional alternative.
> >
> > " To that end, we have established this Code of Conduct for community
> > interaction and participation in the project’s work and the community
> > at large.   This code of conduct covers all interaction between
> > community members on the postgresql.org infrastructure.  Conduct
> > outside the postgresql.org infrastructure may call the Code of
> > Conduct committee to act as long as the interaction (or interaction
> > pattern) is community-related, other parties are unable to act, and
> > the Code of Conduct committee determines that it is in the best
> > interest of the community to apply this Code of Conduct."
>
> Chris,
>
> Would you be satisfied with the CoC if the current 2nd paragraph of the
> Introduction were replaced by the paragraph you wrote above?
>

Yes.  Or something like it.  It need not be exact.

I recognize a need  to be able to take enforcement to some areas off-list
activity, for what it's worth.

>
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> — 2018-09-17T17:20:52Z

On 09/17/2018 10:39 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:28 PM Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
> wrote:
...
>> My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching authority
>> that .Org does not have the right to enforce 
...
> Fascinating that this would, on its face, not apply to a harassment
> campaign carried out over twitter, but it would apply to a few comments
> made over drinks at a bar.

There is a flip side: if you have written standards, you can be held
liable for not enforcing them. Potentially including enforcement of
twitbook AUP on the list subscribers who also have a slackogger account.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

Re: Code of Conduct plan

ERR ORR <rd0002@gmail.com> — 2018-09-19T13:14:59Z

I see a CoC as an infiltration of the PostgreSQL community which has worked
OK since at least 10 years.
The project owners have let their care slacken.
I request that the project owners EXPEL/EXCOMMUNICATE ALL those who are
advancing what can only be seen as an instrument for harassing members of a
to-date peaceful and cordial community.

THROW THESE LEFTIST BULLIES OUT‼️

Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu> schrieb am Mo., 17. Sep. 2018, 19:21:

> On 09/17/2018 10:39 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:28 PM Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
> > wrote:
> ...
> >> My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching authority
> >> that .Org does not have the right to enforce
> ...
> > Fascinating that this would, on its face, not apply to a harassment
> > campaign carried out over twitter, but it would apply to a few comments
> > made over drinks at a bar.
>
> There is a flip side: if you have written standards, you can be held
> liable for not enforcing them. Potentially including enforcement of
> twitbook AUP on the list subscribers who also have a slackogger account.
>
> --
> Dimitri Maziuk
> Programmer/sysadmin
> BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu
>
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2018-09-19T15:38:07Z

>>> Do we want official translations of this? We allow local communities
>>> do their own manual translations. However CoC is so important, I feel
>>> like we need more for Coc. Good thing with CoC is, it is expected that
>>> it would be stable (at least I hope so) and translation works when
>>> it's changed is expected to be minimal, unlike the manual translation
>>> works.
>> 
>> Good idea, but let's wait till the text is official; I'm not sure if
>> we'll change the draft again in response to the current discussions.
> 
> Of course. I will wait for the text to be settled down.

Now that CoC is out,

https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/

I would like to start the translation work.  Can somebody suggest me
how I can proceed?

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-09-19T15:47:36Z

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
> Now that CoC is out,
> https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/
> I would like to start the translation work.  Can somebody suggest me
> how I can proceed?

Sure, translate away.  Probably the -www list is the place to discuss
questions like where it would appear on the website.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2018-09-19T21:10:48Z

Hi web managaers,

> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
>> Now that CoC is out,
>> https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/
>> I would like to start the translation work.  Can somebody suggest me
>> how I can proceed?
> 
> Sure, translate away.  Probably the -www list is the place to discuss
> questions like where it would appear on the website.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane

So how can I proceed the translation work? Just downloading the English
CoC as a text file and translate it into Japanese?

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> — 2018-09-19T21:32:24Z

Hi Tatsuo,

On 9/19/18 5:10 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Hi web managaers,
> 
>> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
>>> Now that CoC is out,
>>> https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/
>>> I would like to start the translation work.  Can somebody suggest me
>>> how I can proceed?
>>
>> Sure, translate away.  Probably the -www list is the place to discuss
>> questions like where it would appear on the website.
>>
>> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> So how can I proceed the translation work? Just downloading the English
> CoC as a text file and translate it into Japanese?

That sounds like a good plan. With the translation in a text file,
someone (good chance it's me) can come up with a patch to place the
content on the site. We will probably handle it similarly to how we
handle the translated press kits.

Given the nature of the content and that we may have a few more
translations come in, we might want to set up a system to have someone
independently review the translations as well and sign off on them.

Thoughts on that?

Jonathan

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2018-09-19T21:41:06Z

Hi Jonathan,

>>> Sure, translate away.  Probably the -www list is the place to discuss
>>> questions like where it would appear on the website.
>>>
>>> 			regards, tom lane
>> 
>> So how can I proceed the translation work? Just downloading the English
>> CoC as a text file and translate it into Japanese?
> 
> That sounds like a good plan. With the translation in a text file,
> someone (good chance it's me) can come up with a patch to place the
> content on the site. We will probably handle it similarly to how we
> handle the translated press kits.
> 
> Given the nature of the content and that we may have a few more
> translations come in, we might want to set up a system to have someone
> independently review the translations as well and sign off on them.
> 
> Thoughts on that?

All sounds good to me.

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> — 2018-09-20T03:11:13Z

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 23:11, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> So because someone doesn't like what I say in a venue 100% separate from
> postgres,  I have to subject myself, and waste my time, defending actions
> in this (and potentially other groups who would also adopt overly broad
> CoC) group.
>

(Usual disclaimer, I speak for myself not my employer here):

My understanding is that that's really only a concern for "Big Stuff".

If we have a committer who loudly and proudly goes to neo-nazi rallies or
pickup artist / pro-rape meetups, then actually yes, I have a problem with
that. That impacts my ability to work in the community, impacts everyone's
ability to recruit people to work on Postgres, potentially makes people
reluctant to engage with the community, etc.

Thankfully we don't.

I'm not sure how to codify it more clearly, though, and to a large degree I
think it's a case of presuming good intent and good will amongst all
parties.

It's clear that if the CoC leans too far, there'll certainly be no shortage
of proud defenders of liberty and free speech coming out of the woodwork,
right? (But remember, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from
consequences, even in nations that codify the concept of freedom of speech
at all. You shouldn't face Government sanction for it, but your peers can
still ostracise you, you can still get fired, etc.)

One of the biggest drivers of plea-bargains for innocent people in the US
> justice system is the expense of having to defend yourself. I find that to
> be a travesty; why are we duplicating that at a smaller level?
>

Because the fact that it is at a smaller level makes it way less of a
concern. No expensive lawyers. More likely we waste a lot of hot air. Like
this mail, probably.

There are intangible but very real (IMO) costs to being a community that
welcomes an unhealthy and hostile communication style, harassment and
personal attacks in the guise of technical argument, bullying defended as
making sure you have the right stuff to survive in a "meritocracy", etc.
Thankfully we are generally not such a community. But try asking a few
women you know in the Postgres community - if you can find any! - how their
experience at conferences has been. Then ask if maybe there are still a few
things we could work on changing.

I've found it quite confronting dealing with some of the more heated
exchanges on hackers from some of our most prominent team members. I've
sent the occasional gentle note to ask someone to chill and pause before
replying, too. And I've deserved to receive one a couple of times, though I
never have, as I'm far from free from blame here.

People love to point to LKML as the way it "must" be done to succeed in
software. Yet slowly that community has also come to recognise that verbal
abuse under the cloak of technical discussion is harmful to quality
discussion and drives out good people, harming the community long term.
Sure, not everything has to be super-diplomatic, but there's no excuse for
verbal bullying and wilful use of verbal aggression either. As widely
publicised, even Linus has recently recognised aspects of this, despite
being the poster child of proponents of abusive leadership for decades.

We don't have a culture like that. So in practice, I don't imagine the CoC
will see much use. The real problematic stuff that happens in this
community happens in conference halls and occasionally by private mail,
usually in the face of a power imbalance that makes the recipient/victim
reluctant to speak out. I hope a formal CoC will give them some hope
they'll be heard if they do take the personal risk to speak up. I've seen
so much victim blaming in tech that I'm not convinced most people
experiencing problems will be willing to speak out anyway, but hopefully
they'll be more so with a private and receptive group to talk to.

Let me be clear here, I'm no fan of trial by rabid mob. That's part of why
something like the CoC and a backing body is important. Otherwise people
are often forced to silently endure, or go loudly public. The latter tends
to result in a big messy explosion that hurts the community, those saying
they're victim(s) and the alleged perpetrator(s), no matter what the facts
and outcomes. It also encourages people to jump on one comment and run way
too far with it, instead of looking at patterns and giving people chances
to fix their behaviour.

I don't want us to have this:
https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spiraled-way-out-of-control/
. Which is actually why I favour a CoC, one with a resolution process and
encouragement toward some common sense. Every player in that story was an
idiot, and while none deserved the abuse and harrassment that came their
way, it's a shame it wan't handled by a complaint to a conference CoC group
instead.

I'd like the CoC to emphasise that while we don't want to restrain people
from "calling out" egregious behaviour, going via the CoC team is often
more likely to lead to constructive communication and positive change.

-- 
 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> — 2018-09-20T05:12:22Z

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:11 AM Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 23:11, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> So because someone doesn't like what I say in a venue 100% separate from
>> postgres,  I have to subject myself, and waste my time, defending actions
>> in this (and potentially other groups who would also adopt overly broad
>> CoC) group.
>>
>
> (Usual disclaimer, I speak for myself not my employer here):
>
> My understanding is that that's really only a concern for "Big Stuff".
>
> If we have a committer who loudly and proudly goes to neo-nazi rallies or
> pickup artist / pro-rape meetups, then actually yes, I have a problem with
> that. That impacts my ability to work in the community, impacts everyone's
> ability to recruit people to work on Postgres, potentially makes people
> reluctant to engage with the community, etc.
>

There's a problem here though. Generally in Europe, one would not be able
to fire a person or even discriminate against him for such activity.  So if
you kick someone out of the PostgreSQL community for doing such things in,
say, Germany but their employer cannot fire them for the same, then you
have a real problem if improving PostgreSQL is the basis of their
employment.    EU antidiscrimination law includes political views and other
opinions so internationally that line is actually very hard to push in an
international project.  So I think you'd have a problem where such
enforcement might actually lead to legal action by the employer, or the
individual kicked out, or both.

If one of my reports were to come out in favor of the holocaust or Stalin's
purges, etc. I would not be allowed to use that as grounds to fire that
employee, even in Germany.  Now, if they communicated such aggressively at
work, I might.

This also highlights the problem of trying to enforce norms across global
projects.  My view simply is that we cannot.  There are probably some rare
cases even more extreme than this where enforcement globally might not be a
problem.

The goal of a code of conduct is to protect the community and this is
actually a hard problem which gets substantially harder as more cultures
and legal jurisdictions are included.  However there is also a topic of
global fairness.  Would we tolerate treating someone in, say, the US who
attended Neo-Nazi rallies worse than someone who attended right-wing
rallies in Europe?

So I think one has to go with least common denominator in these areas and
this is also why this really isn't that much of a problem.  The CoC really
cannot be enforced in the way which a lot of people fear without serious
consequences for the community and so I trust it won't.

>
> Thankfully we don't.
>

Agreed on that.

>
> I'm not sure how to codify it more clearly, though, and to a large degree
> I think it's a case of presuming good intent and good will amongst all
> parties.
>

At the end, human judgment has to rule.

>
> It's clear that if the CoC leans too far, there'll certainly be no
> shortage of proud defenders of liberty and free speech coming out of the
> woodwork, right? (But remember, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from
> consequences, even in nations that codify the concept of freedom of speech
> at all. You shouldn't face Government sanction for it, but your peers can
> still ostracise you, you can still get fired, etc.)
>

One of the standard European values is freedom of political opinion and the
idea that there must be no economic consequences of merely having unpopular
political opinions.  However there may be time/manner/place restrictions on
expressing those.

For example, Mozilla Corporation could ask Brendan Eich to leave because
they are an American corporation and this is solely about the American
leadership.  Therefore they don't have to deal with European laws.  I don't
think the same applies to us and certainly if they were to fire a developer
in Germany for more more abrasive political communications via facebook
etc. they would have a lawsuit on their hands.

The freedom to a) hold political ideas without consequence, and b)
communicate them civilly without consequence is something that I find many
people the US (and I assume Australia) find strange,

>
> One of the biggest drivers of plea-bargains for innocent people in the US
>> justice system is the expense of having to defend yourself. I find that to
>> be a travesty; why are we duplicating that at a smaller level?
>>
>
> Because the fact that it is at a smaller level makes it way less of a
> concern. No expensive lawyers. More likely we waste a lot of hot air. Like
> this mail, probably.
>
> There are intangible but very real (IMO) costs to being a community that
> welcomes an unhealthy and hostile communication style, harassment and
> personal attacks in the guise of technical argument, bullying defended as
> making sure you have the right stuff to survive in a "meritocracy", etc.
> Thankfully we are generally not such a community. But try asking a few
> women you know in the Postgres community - if you can find any! - how their
> experience at conferences has been. Then ask if maybe there are still a few
> things we could work on changing.
>
> I've found it quite confronting dealing with some of the more heated
> exchanges on hackers from some of our most prominent team members. I've
> sent the occasional gentle note to ask someone to chill and pause before
> replying, too. And I've deserved to receive one a couple of times, though I
> never have, as I'm far from free from blame here.
>

But that happens to everyone.  Male, female, etc.  And yes, such notes are
good.

I think you are right to point to harassment though.  I have seen people in
this community resort to some really aggressive tactics with other members,
particularly off-list (and sometimes in person).  The interactions on the
postgresql.org infrastructure have always been good except in a few cases.
That is the one really important reason for enforcement against off-list
actions.  It is not (and can't be) about politics.  It has to be about
personally directed campaigns of harassment.

>
> People love to point to LKML as the way it "must" be done to succeed in
> software. Yet slowly that community has also come to recognise that verbal
> abuse under the cloak of technical discussion is harmful to quality
> discussion and drives out good people, harming the community long term.
> Sure, not everything has to be super-diplomatic, but there's no excuse for
> verbal bullying and wilful use of verbal aggression either. As widely
> publicised, even Linus has recently recognised aspects of this, despite
> being the poster child of proponents of abusive leadership for decades.
>
> We don't have a culture like that. So in practice, I don't imagine the CoC
> will see much use. The real problematic stuff that happens in this
> community happens in conference halls and occasionally by private mail,
> usually in the face of a power imbalance that makes the recipient/victim
> reluctant to speak out. I hope a formal CoC will give them some hope
> they'll be heard if they do take the personal risk to speak up. I've seen
> so much victim blaming in tech that I'm not convinced most people
> experiencing problems will be willing to speak out anyway, but hopefully
> they'll be more so with a private and receptive group to talk to.
>

I will say also that where I have seen the most problems I would not speak
out in detail because I don't feel like they rise to a level where the CoC
should be involved.

>
> Let me be clear here, I'm no fan of trial by rabid mob. That's part of why
> something like the CoC and a backing body is important. Otherwise people
> are often forced to silently endure, or go loudly public. The latter tends
> to result in a big messy explosion that hurts the community, those saying
> they're victim(s) and the alleged perpetrator(s), no matter what the facts
> and outcomes. It also encourages people to jump on one comment and run way
> too far with it, instead of looking at patterns and giving people chances
> to fix their behaviour.
>
> I don't want us to have this:
> https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spiraled-way-out-of-control/
> . Which is actually why I favour a CoC, one with a resolution process and
> encouragement toward some common sense. Every player in that story was an
> idiot, and while none deserved the abuse and harrassment that came their
> way, it's a shame it wan't handled by a complaint to a conference CoC group
> instead.
>
> I'd like the CoC to emphasise that while we don't want to restrain people
> from "calling out" egregious behaviour, going via the CoC team is often
> more likely to lead to constructive communication and positive change.
>

Agreed on this.

My objection to the additional wording is simply that a) I think it does
not tackle the problem it needs to tackle, and b) creates a claim which
covers a bunch of things that it really shouldn't.  It's a serious bug and
I still hope it gets fixed before it causes problems.

>
> --
>  Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
>  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2018-09-23T04:14:00Z

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> There's been quite a lot of input, from quite a lot of people, dating
> back at least as far as a well-attended session at PGCon 2016.  I find
> it quite upsetting to hear accusations that core is imposing this out
> of nowhere.  From my perspective, we're responding to a real need
> voiced by other people, not so much by us.

Yeah, but there's a difference between input and agreement.  I don't
think there's been a mailing list thread anywhere at any time where a
clear majority of the people on that thread supported the idea of a
code of conduct.  I don't think that question has even been put.  I
don't think there's ever been a developer meeting where by a show of
hands the idea of a CoC, much less the specific text, got a clear
majority.  I don't think that any attempt has been made to do that,
either.  Core is (thankfully) not usually given to imposing new rules
on the community; we normally operate by consensus.  Why this specific
instance is an exception, as it certainly seems to be, is unclear to
me.

To be clear, I'm not saying that no harassment occurs in our
community.  I suspect women get harassed at our conferences.  I know
of only one specific incident that made me uncomfortable, and that was
quite a few years ago and the woman in question laughed it off when I
asked her if there was a problem, but I have heard rumors of other
things on occasion, and I just wouldn't be too surprised if we're not
all as nice in private as we pretend to be in public.  And on the
other hand, I think that mailing list discussions step over the line
to harassment from time to time even though that's in full public
view.  Regrettably, you and I have both been guilty of that from time
to time, as have many others.  I know that I, personally, have been
trying to be a lot more careful about the way I phrase criticism in
recent years; I hope that has been noticeable, but I only see it from
my own perspective, so I don't know.  Nonwithstanding, I would like to
see us, as a group, do better.  We should tolerate less bad behavior
in ourselves and in others, and however good or bad we are today as
people, we should try to be better people.

Whether or not the code of conduct plan that the core committee has
decided to implement is likely to move us in that direction remains
unclear to me.  I can't say I'm very impressed by the way the process
has been carried out up to this point; hopefully it will work out for
the best all the same.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2018-10-11T22:48:38Z

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 07:12:22AM +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
>     If we have a committer who loudly and proudly goes to neo-nazi rallies or
>     pickup artist / pro-rape meetups, then actually yes, I have a problem with
>     that. That impacts my ability to work in the community, impacts everyone's
>     ability to recruit people to work on Postgres, potentially makes people
>     reluctant to engage with the community, etc.
> 
> There's a problem here though. Generally in Europe, one would not be able to
> fire a person or even discriminate against him for such activity.  So if you
> kick someone out of the PostgreSQL community for doing such things in, say,
> Germany but their employer cannot fire them for the same, then you have a real
> problem if improving PostgreSQL is the basis of their employment.    EU
> antidiscrimination law includes political views and other opinions so
> internationally that line is actually very hard to push in an international
> project.  So I think you'd have a problem where such enforcement might actually
> lead to legal action by the employer, or the individual kicked out, or both.

Yes, I had the same reaction.  Activity not involving other Postgres
members seems like it would not be covered by the CoC, except for
"behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into disrepute", which
seems like a stretch.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2018-10-20T01:07:02Z

Hi Jonathan,

>>>> Sure, translate away.  Probably the -www list is the place to discuss
>>>> questions like where it would appear on the website.
>>>>
>>>> 			regards, tom lane
>>> 
>>> So how can I proceed the translation work? Just downloading the English
>>> CoC as a text file and translate it into Japanese?
>> 
>> That sounds like a good plan. With the translation in a text file,
>> someone (good chance it's me) can come up with a patch to place the
>> content on the site. We will probably handle it similarly to how we
>> handle the translated press kits.
>> 
>> Given the nature of the content and that we may have a few more
>> translations come in, we might want to set up a system to have someone
>> independently review the translations as well and sign off on them.
>> 
>> Thoughts on that?
> 
> All sounds good to me.

Attached is the Japanese translation of CoC. The translation was done
by a professional translator and then reviewed by community relation
team (I am one of the members) of PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium
(PGECons [1]). The cost of the translation was supported by PGECONS.

[1] PGECons is a non profit organization comprised of companies in
Japan to promote PostgreSQL (https://www.pgecons.org).

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> — 2018-11-04T15:29:26Z

Hi Tatsuo,

On 10/19/18 9:07 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
>>> Given the nature of the content and that we may have a few more
>>> translations come in, we might want to set up a system to have someone
>>> independently review the translations as well and sign off on them.
>>>
>>> Thoughts on that?
>>
>> All sounds good to me.
> 
> Attached is the Japanese translation of CoC. The translation was done
> by a professional translator and then reviewed by community relation
> team (I am one of the members) of PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium
> (PGECons [1]). The cost of the translation was supported by PGECONS.

Thank you again for working on this and having the translation
independently reviewed. I have attached a patch I propose for the
website. Please let me know if there are any mistakes with how I
converted it into HTML.

This patch includes the "infrastructure" needed to add other
translations of the CoC, so hopefully others will also submit
translations that we can include :)

Once this is signed off on, I will commit to the website.

Thanks,

Jonathan

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2018-11-05T02:20:36Z

Hi Jonathan,

> Hi Tatsuo,
> 
> On 10/19/18 9:07 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan,
>> 
>>>> Given the nature of the content and that we may have a few more
>>>> translations come in, we might want to set up a system to have someone
>>>> independently review the translations as well and sign off on them.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts on that?
>>>
>>> All sounds good to me.
>> 
>> Attached is the Japanese translation of CoC. The translation was done
>> by a professional translator and then reviewed by community relation
>> team (I am one of the members) of PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium
>> (PGECons [1]). The cost of the translation was supported by PGECONS.
> 
> Thank you again for working on this and having the translation
> independently reviewed. I have attached a patch I propose for the
> website. Please let me know if there are any mistakes with how I
> converted it into HTML.
> 
> This patch includes the "infrastructure" needed to add other
> translations of the CoC, so hopefully others will also submit
> translations that we can include :)
> 
> Once this is signed off on, I will commit to the website.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jonathan

Thanks for the editorial for HTML.

Here are subtle changes I would like to have:

(1)
<p><em>Last updated: 最終更新日: 2018年8月18日</em></p>

"Last updated:" is not necessary because "最終更新日:" is same in
Japanese and it's redundant.

(2)
我々は皆様がプロとして行動する中で、礼儀と共通の利益を重んじ、全てのユーザーと開発者に敬意を払うことを望んでいます。<p>

"<p>" should be "</p>".

(3)
line 87:
"  もしコアチームが委員会の下した結論に反対した場合、コアチームは委員会にその理由を提示するものとします。"
The leading 2 spaces are not necessary.

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2018-11-05T12:46:00Z

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:20 AM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
>
> > Hi Tatsuo,
> >
> > On 10/19/18 9:07 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> Hi Jonathan,
> >>
> >>>> Given the nature of the content and that we may have a few more
> >>>> translations come in, we might want to set up a system to have someone
> >>>> independently review the translations as well and sign off on them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts on that?
> >>>
> >>> All sounds good to me.
> >>
> >> Attached is the Japanese translation of CoC. The translation was done
> >> by a professional translator and then reviewed by community relation
> >> team (I am one of the members) of PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium
> >> (PGECons [1]). The cost of the translation was supported by PGECONS.
> >
> > Thank you again for working on this and having the translation
> > independently reviewed. I have attached a patch I propose for the
> > website. Please let me know if there are any mistakes with how I
> > converted it into HTML.
> >
> > This patch includes the "infrastructure" needed to add other
> > translations of the CoC, so hopefully others will also submit
> > translations that we can include :)
> >
> > Once this is signed off on, I will commit to the website.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> Thanks for the editorial for HTML.
>
> Here are subtle changes I would like to have:
>
> (1)
> <p><em>Last updated: 最終更新日: 2018年8月18日</em></p>
>
> "Last updated:" is not necessary because "最終更新日:" is same in
> Japanese and it's redundant.
>

I would suggest mayne including something like "最終更新日 (Last updated):" , to
make it clear lto the casual observer who doesn't know Japanese that this
is what it means as well.

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2018-11-05T12:48:09Z

> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:20 AM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>> > Hi Tatsuo,
>> >
>> > On 10/19/18 9:07 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> >> Hi Jonathan,
>> >>
>> >>>> Given the nature of the content and that we may have a few more
>> >>>> translations come in, we might want to set up a system to have someone
>> >>>> independently review the translations as well and sign off on them.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thoughts on that?
>> >>>
>> >>> All sounds good to me.
>> >>
>> >> Attached is the Japanese translation of CoC. The translation was done
>> >> by a professional translator and then reviewed by community relation
>> >> team (I am one of the members) of PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium
>> >> (PGECons [1]). The cost of the translation was supported by PGECONS.
>> >
>> > Thank you again for working on this and having the translation
>> > independently reviewed. I have attached a patch I propose for the
>> > website. Please let me know if there are any mistakes with how I
>> > converted it into HTML.
>> >
>> > This patch includes the "infrastructure" needed to add other
>> > translations of the CoC, so hopefully others will also submit
>> > translations that we can include :)
>> >
>> > Once this is signed off on, I will commit to the website.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Jonathan
>>
>> Thanks for the editorial for HTML.
>>
>> Here are subtle changes I would like to have:
>>
>> (1)
>> <p><em>Last updated: 最終更新日: 2018年8月18日</em></p>
>>
>> "Last updated:" is not necessary because "最終更新日:" is same in
>> Japanese and it's redundant.
>>
> 
> I would suggest mayne including something like "最終更新日 (Last updated):" , to
> make it clear lto the casual observer who doesn't know Japanese that this
> is what it means as well.

+1.
That makes sense.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> — 2018-11-05T21:46:07Z

Hi Tatsuo & Magnus,

On 11/5/18 7:48 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:20 AM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
>>> Here are subtle changes I would like to have:
>>>
>>> (1)
>>> <p><em>Last updated: 最終更新日: 2018年8月18日</em></p>
>>>
>>> "Last updated:" is not necessary because "最終更新日:" is same in
>>> Japanese and it's redundant.
>>>
>>
>> I would suggest mayne including something like "最終更新日 (Last updated):" , to
>> make it clear lto the casual observer who doesn't know Japanese that this
>> is what it means as well.
> 
> +1.
> That makes sense.

Thank you both for your feedback. Please see attached with the full list
of revisions that Tatsuo recommended.

Thanks,

Jonathan

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2018-11-05T23:43:03Z

Hi Jonathan,

> Hi Tatsuo & Magnus,
> 
> On 11/5/18 7:48 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:20 AM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
>>>> Here are subtle changes I would like to have:
>>>>
>>>> (1)
>>>> <p><em>Last updated: 最終更新日: 2018年8月18日</em></p>
>>>>
>>>> "Last updated:" is not necessary because "最終更新日:" is same in
>>>> Japanese and it's redundant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would suggest mayne including something like "最終更新日 (Last updated):" , to
>>> make it clear lto the casual observer who doesn't know Japanese that this
>>> is what it means as well.
>> 
>> +1.
>> That makes sense.
> 
> Thank you both for your feedback. Please see attached with the full list
> of revisions that Tatsuo recommended.

Thanks. Looks good to me.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> — 2018-11-06T03:51:34Z

On 11/5/18 6:43 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>> Thank you both for your feedback. Please see attached with the full list
>> of revisions that Tatsuo recommended.
> 
> Thanks. Looks good to me.

Thanks! This has been pushed and is now available on the website.

Best,

Jonathan

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2018-11-06T04:02:25Z

Jonathan,

> On 11/5/18 6:43 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>> Thank you both for your feedback. Please see attached with the full list
>>> of revisions that Tatsuo recommended.
>> 
>> Thanks. Looks good to me.
> 
> Thanks! This has been pushed and is now available on the website.

Confirmed. Thank you very much!
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2021-01-18T08:17:05Z

Hi Jonathan,

I noticed that CoC (pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc.html) was
updated in last August.  Attached is a patch to
pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc/ja.html to sync with
coc.html.

Can you please apply it?

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

> Jonathan,
> 
>> On 11/5/18 6:43 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>>> Thank you both for your feedback. Please see attached with the full list
>>>> of revisions that Tatsuo recommended.
>>> 
>>> Thanks. Looks good to me.
>> 
>> Thanks! This has been pushed and is now available on the website.
> 
> Confirmed. Thank you very much!
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> — 2021-01-18T20:52:19Z

Hi Tatsuo,

+coc

On 1/18/21 3:17 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> I noticed that CoC (pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc.html) was
> updated in last August.  Attached is a patch to
> pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc/ja.html to sync with
> coc.html.

Thanks for making the update!

> Can you please apply it?

I would like to ensure that the CoC committee approves before applying
the patch. I believe last time we had suggested that someone also
independently verify the translation. I'm not sure if we did that, but
perhaps we should get into the habit (though defer to the CoC
committee's thoughts on that matter).

Thanks!

Jonathan

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2021-01-18T22:54:22Z

Hi Jonathan,

> Hi Tatsuo,
> 
> +coc
> 
> On 1/18/21 3:17 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan,
>> 
>> I noticed that CoC (pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc.html) was
>> updated in last August.  Attached is a patch to
>> pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc/ja.html to sync with
>> coc.html.
> 
> Thanks for making the update!
> 
>> Can you please apply it?
> 
> I would like to ensure that the CoC committee approves before applying
> the patch. I believe last time we had suggested that someone also
> independently verify the translation. I'm not sure if we did that, but
> perhaps we should get into the habit (though defer to the CoC
> committee's thoughts on that matter).

This time, same as before, PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium (PGECons)
members have reviewed the patch.

https://www.pgecons.org/

PGECons is a non-profit organization consisting of companies in Japan
that are willing to promote PostgreSQL.

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Stacey Haysler <stacey@haysler.sh> — 2021-01-19T02:42:44Z

Dear Tatsuo and Jonathan - Thank you for including us in this discussion. We will review the update and follow up shortly.

Regards,
Stacey

Stacey Haysler
Chair
PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct Committee

On Jan 18, 2021, at 2:54 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

Hi Jonathan,

> Hi Tatsuo,
> 
> +coc
> 
> On 1/18/21 3:17 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan,
>> 
>> I noticed that CoC (pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc.html) was
>> updated in last August.  Attached is a patch to
>> pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc/ja.html to sync with
>> coc.html.
> 
> Thanks for making the update!
> 
>> Can you please apply it?
> 
> I would like to ensure that the CoC committee approves before applying
> the patch. I believe last time we had suggested that someone also
> independently verify the translation. I'm not sure if we did that, but
> perhaps we should get into the habit (though defer to the CoC
> committee's thoughts on that matter).

This time, same as before, PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium (PGECons)
members have reviewed the patch.

https://www.pgecons.org/

PGECons is a non-profit organization consisting of companies in Japan
that are willing to promote PostgreSQL.

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> — 2021-01-26T02:54:10Z

Dear Stacey,

May I have the progress of the review in your team?

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

From: Stacey Haysler <stacey@haysler.sh>
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:42:44 -0800
Message-ID: <4E87504F-A9F8-4EB0-8E22-25456E998EF3@haysler.sh>

> Dear Tatsuo and Jonathan - Thank you for including us in this discussion. We will review the update and follow up shortly.
> 
> Regards,
> Stacey
> 
> Stacey Haysler
> Chair
> PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct Committee
> 
> On Jan 18, 2021, at 2:54 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
>> Hi Tatsuo,
>> 
>> +coc
>> 
>> On 1/18/21 3:17 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>> 
>>> I noticed that CoC (pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc.html) was
>>> updated in last August.  Attached is a patch to
>>> pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc/ja.html to sync with
>>> coc.html.
>> 
>> Thanks for making the update!
>> 
>>> Can you please apply it?
>> 
>> I would like to ensure that the CoC committee approves before applying
>> the patch. I believe last time we had suggested that someone also
>> independently verify the translation. I'm not sure if we did that, but
>> perhaps we should get into the habit (though defer to the CoC
>> committee's thoughts on that matter).
> 
> This time, same as before, PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium (PGECons)
> members have reviewed the patch.
> 
> https://www.pgecons.org/
> 
> PGECons is a non-profit organization consisting of companies in Japan
> that are willing to promote PostgreSQL.
> 
> Best regards,
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
> 
> 
>

Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan

Stacey Haysler <stacey@haysler.sh> — 2021-01-26T20:31:20Z

Dear Tatsuo - We will complete our review and have the update by the end of this week. Thank you.

Regards,
Stacey

Stacey Haysler
Chair
PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct Committee

On Jan 25, 2021, at 6:54 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

Dear Stacey,

May I have the progress of the review in your team?

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

From: Stacey Haysler <stacey@haysler.sh>
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan,Re: Code of Conduct plan
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:42:44 -0800
Message-ID: <4E87504F-A9F8-4EB0-8E22-25456E998EF3@haysler.sh>

> Dear Tatsuo and Jonathan - Thank you for including us in this discussion. We will review the update and follow up shortly.
> 
> Regards,
> Stacey
> 
> Stacey Haysler
> Chair
> PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct Committee
> 
> On Jan 18, 2021, at 2:54 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
>> Hi Tatsuo,
>> 
>> +coc
>> 
>> On 1/18/21 3:17 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>> 
>>> I noticed that CoC (pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc.html) was
>>> updated in last August.  Attached is a patch to
>>> pgweb/templates/pages/about/policies/coc/ja.html to sync with
>>> coc.html.
>> 
>> Thanks for making the update!
>> 
>>> Can you please apply it?
>> 
>> I would like to ensure that the CoC committee approves before applying
>> the patch. I believe last time we had suggested that someone also
>> independently verify the translation. I'm not sure if we did that, but
>> perhaps we should get into the habit (though defer to the CoC
>> committee's thoughts on that matter).
> 
> This time, same as before, PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium (PGECons)
> members have reviewed the patch.
> 
> https://www.pgecons.org/
> 
> PGECons is a non-profit organization consisting of companies in Japan
> that are willing to promote PostgreSQL.
> 
> Best regards,
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
> 
> 
>