On 01/12/2016 07:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> writes:
>> I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's
>> draft to something that seems more "natural" to me.
>
> Minor (or not?) comment:
>
>> * To maintain a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative
>> environment all participants must ensure that their language and
>> actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any
>> kind.
>
> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid
> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, and
> Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points. "Of any
> kind" doesn't improve that either. I'm on board with the "personal
> attacks" part. Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be better?
Hrm, I see your point but the definition of disparaging is:
expressing the opinion that something is of little worth; derogatory.
I guess if we got into a VI vs Emacs argument the CoC could apply but
wouldn't that also be a good thing?
JD
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.
