Re: Recognized PostgreSQL External Communications Channels - Mailing list pgsql-www

1) At the moment, we have taken the position (rightly or wrongly) that any communication channel that includes multiple PostgreSQL people is automatically subject to the CoC. There have been CoC incidents centered around private communications and at least one Telegram channel which was setup by a community member for general chatter on any subject. Having a list of "recognised" channels will - whether we like it or not - change that. It will implicitly set a boundary on what channels the CoC applies to. That could effectively exclude the Telegram channel, or private communications which one could argue are effectively a mailing list created through use of a persistent set of addressees. 

I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing - in fact, I think we do need some boundaries to prevent overreach and ensure that people know where the CoC applies and where it does not (part of the issue in the Telegram case was indeed whether or not the CoC should apply). For example, I have often made the point that my 50th birthday party included multiple PostgreSQL community members, as well as people who have nothing to do with PostgreSQL at all. Arguments have been made that the CoC would apply to that gathering, which might have meant that the community members in attendance would be prevented from making a joke that would have been considered perfectly acceptable in a pub in the UK but that the other attendees would have been able to make, either because they didn't care about or know of the CoC, or because it was recognised that it wouldn't apply to them as they weren't part of the community.

My point is that we need to recognise that this proposed policy and the resulting list may have far wider reaching consequences that initially envisaged, and to be mindful of that.

2) Some platforms do not allow multiple owners/administrators. Does that mean they cannot be recognised?

3) If an owner/administrator steps down, does the channel automatically become un-recognised? Perhaps a grace period is required?

4) I find the way the doc talks about owner/administrators and then moderation a little confusing, to the point that I had to read it a couple of times until I realised it wasn't talking about 3 different groups of people. Perhaps the terms owner and moderators would be better? That would likely solve my point 2 above in some cases as well, where platforms allow one owner but multiple moderators.

5) I think the terms of service section needs some thought. As written, if a service explicitly allows (for example) hate speech, then that means we have to allow it in the PostgreSQL channel too. I think this section needs to state instead that the most restrictive terms must apply. 

6) Although there is the universal get-out clause at the top allowing the core team to not recognise at will (kudos for keeping the proper spelling there :-) ), I wonder if we should also have an explicit clause stating that we will not recognise channels on platforms that clearly are not appropriate for the project, for example, a platform primarily known for extreme political discussion.

 

Thank you both!