Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > It's not clear to me that there IS a general consensus here. It looks > to me like the unelected core team got together and decided to impose > a vaguely-worded code of conduct on a vaguely-defined group of people > covering not only their work on PostgreSQL but also their entire life.
There's been quite a lot of input, from quite a lot of people, dating back at least as far as a well-attended session at PGCon 2016. I find it quite upsetting to hear accusations that core is imposing this out of nowhere. From my perspective, we're responding to a real need voiced by other people, not so much by us.
> However, I also don't think it matters very much.
Yeah, this. The PG community is mostly nice people, AFAICT. I'll be astonished (and worried) if the CoC committee finds much to do. We're implementing this mostly to make newcomers to the project feel that it's a safe space.
It's also worth reminding people that this is v1.0 of the CoC document. We plan to revisit it in a year or so, and thereafter as needed, to improve anything that's causing problems or not working well.
regards, tom lane
I must admit that I'm impressed by the huge amount of contributions to this thread and, to be honest, it is the only one I have witnessed that would have deserved a CoC. I had a quick look at the proposal and it sounds to me like the team is trying to handle excesses - as long as no one complains, I would bet that they won't even chime in.
One thing to keep in mind is this simple definition: "One person's freedom ends where another's begins" and all the work should go in this direction. We are all different, have different sensitivities, come from different cultures where we interpret words in a different way - it's a given, no way to escape. But we have in common the love of a great piece of software provided by a very active and efficient community.
Why don't we focus on what unites us, instead of what creates divisions?
