Re: Code of Conduct plan - Mailing list pgsql-general
| From | Chris Travers |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Code of Conduct plan |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAKt_ZftH2mZvdEcWytVEq=6pXVtgUdfD==OF+ZS49w+=E29GNQ@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: Code of Conduct plan (James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: Code of Conduct plan
|
| List | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 7:01 PM, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:
I'm sorry for the double post.
> If you read the reporting guidelines, it is requested that someone filing a
report provides as much evidence as possible, and that is a really
important provision, both for the person reporting and for the committee
to review and adjudicate fairly.
What does fairly mean?
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.
But let's look at all fairness in a more likely scenario where someone involved in, say, Human Rights Campaign posts something arguing that marriage is not a bond that binds parents to their children but something that exists solely for the benefit of the spouses and a conservative from, say, India, complains. Do we ask the individual to change his or her signature?
What happens if the signature proclaims that Tibet should be free and Chinese folks on the list worry about ramifications for participating in these cases?
But worse, what if by not taking sides, we say that this isn't big enough for us to adjudicate and so the conservative from India puts up a quote on his email signature citing Gandhi's view that accepting consent-based morality to sexual contact leads to accepting homosexual contact, and this leads to misery for everyone. When challenged he points out it is just social critique like the other signature.
Now what do we do? Do we side with one or the other? Or do we ban both or refuse to get involved? At that point there are no longer any good options but I will state my preference would be to reiterate to both that we ought to have a live-and-let-live culture and this applies to cultural differences on concepts of gender and marriage.
This sort of thing will happen. I have watched calls for pushing gay and lesbian roles on television in the US lead to policies of censorship of Western media in countries like Indonesia (where Glee among other shows are now formally banned), and this is one issue which is incredibly divisive throughout the world with a lot of people having very deep-seated feelings on the issue, where one can expect small differences to lead to big conflicts. And I think we want to avoid wading into those conflicts.
Jim
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
pgsql-general by date: