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
