On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
>>
>> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
>> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
>>
>> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
>> should always assume good intentions.
>>
>> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
>> pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
>> tolerated.
> I suggest we remove point 3 entirely. Point 2 is sufficient to limit what is
> said.
That came about because of the point made by someone for whom
English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone
by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that
was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant).
Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but
it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to
language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people
don't give each other some benefit of the doubt.
> Who will decide how this code is enacted? Rules imply rulers, so what is the
> constitution of the governing body?
It has been stated several times on this thread by multiple people
that we should settle on the code to implement before talking about
enforcement processes.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
