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. *****
