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
