Re: Code of Conduct plan - Mailing list pgsql-general

On 09/14/2018 07:14 AM, Dave Page wrote:

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
the comments in this thread; see

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

(That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)

I really have to object to this addition:

"This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members, whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."

That covers things like public twitter messages over live political controversies which might not be personally directed.   At least if one is going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and politics.  Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble.  See, for example, what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to encourage use of this to silence political controversies unrelated to PostgreSQL.

I think this is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full stop.

I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...

I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices, then they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we should have every right to sanction them by preventing them participating in our project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate.

We all know that PostgreSQL is the only database we should use and anybody using a different one just hasn't been enlightened yet. :P

I think we need to define community member. I absolutely see your point of the individual is a contributor but community member is rather ethereal in this context don't you think?