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
