On 1/10/16 10:07 AM, Bill Moran wrote:
> The fact that Postgres has not needed a CoC up till now is a
> testiment to the quality of the people in the community. However,
> if Postgres continues to be more popular, the number of people
> involved is going to increase. Simply as a factor of statistics,
> the project will be forced to deal with some unsavory people at
> some point. Having a CoC is laying the foundation to ensure that
> dealing with those people involves the least pain possible. It
> will always involve_some_ pain, but less is better.
>
> I've done the job of #3 with other groups, and 99% of the time
> there was nothing to do. The one incident I had to handle was
> terrible, but at least I had some guidance on how to deal with
> it.
Bingo.
To me, the CoC is as much about protecting Postgres itself as it is
about protecting contributors. Haters are going to hate, no matter what
you do... so how do you remove them and their toxicity as cleanly as
possible?
BTW, IMHO I think it was a mistake for the FreeBSD community to try and
keep things quiet. Sweeping stuff like this under the rug doesn't help
anyone. The problem is how to publicize things without scaring people
away from reporting. Also, not allowing your CoC to become a weapon that
someone can use offensively.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
