On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 point has nothing to do with _correct_ discussions or
public tweets.
If one community member tweets publicly and in a way which abuses
other community members, it is obvious CoC violation. It is hard to
imagine healthy community if someone interacts with others correctly
on the list or at a conference because the CoC stops him doing things
which he will do on private capacity to the same people when CoC
doesnt apply.
If someone reports CoC violation just because other community member's
_correct_ public tweet or whatsoever expressed different
political/philosophical/religious views, this is a quite different
story. I suppose CoC committee and/or Core team in this case should
explain the reporter the purpose of CoC rather than automatically
enforce it.
> --
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
> Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
> lock-in.
> http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
