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

On 06/05/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Travers wrote:

    Let's role play. I'll be a homophobic person.

    You've just submitted a proposal suggesting that we change
    master-master replication to be multi-partner replication. I've told
    you I don't like the wording because of it's implication of
    supporting homosexual marriage, which I believe to be a personal
    offense to me, my marriage, and my "deeply held religious beliefs".
    You tell me that's not your intent and that you do not plan to
    change your proposed wording. You continue to use the term in all
    correspondences on the list and I continually tell you that
    supporting gay marriage is offensive and that you need to not be so
    deeply offensive. I submit all our correspondences to the CoC
    committee and complain that you're purposely using language that is
    extremely offensive.

    What is a "fair" outcome? Should you be banned? Should you be forced
    to change the wording of your proposal that no one else has
    complained about and others support? What is a fair, just outcome?


I think the fundamental outcome is likely to be that people who cause trouble are likely to get trouble.  This sort of case really doesn't worry me.  I am sure whoever is stirring the pot will be asked at least to cease doing so.

Your example is flawed because:

Multi-Partner has nothing to do with sexuality unless you want to make the argument that your belief is that a relationship should be between one person and another and in this argument a man and a woman which has literally nothing to do with the word multi or partner in a technical context.

Your example would carry better wait if you used master-master replication to be man-man or woman-woman neither of which makes any sense in the context of replication.

Since man-man or woman-woman makes zero sense in the context of replication it would immediately be -1 from all the -hackers of any sense which for the most part is all of them.

In short the fundamental outcome is that the community wouldn't let it get that far. We have 20 years of results to show in that one.