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

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 23:11, James Keener <jim@jimkeener.com> wrote:

(Usual disclaimer, I speak for myself not my employer here):

My understanding is that that's really only a concern for "Big Stuff".

If we have a committer who loudly and proudly goes to neo-nazi rallies or pickup artist / pro-rape meetups, then actually yes, I have a problem with that. That impacts my ability to work in the community, impacts everyone's ability to recruit people to work on Postgres, potentially makes people reluctant to engage with the community, etc.

Thankfully we don't.

I'm not sure how to codify it more clearly, though, and to a large degree I think it's a case of presuming good intent and good will amongst all parties.

It's clear that if the CoC leans too far, there'll certainly be no shortage of proud defenders of liberty and free speech coming out of the woodwork, right? (But remember, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, even in nations that codify the concept of freedom of speech at all. You shouldn't face Government sanction for it, but your peers can still ostracise you, you can still get fired, etc.)

Because the fact that it is at a smaller level makes it way less of a concern. No expensive lawyers. More likely we waste a lot of hot air. Like this mail, probably.

There are intangible but very real (IMO) costs to being a community that welcomes an unhealthy and hostile communication style, harassment and personal attacks in the guise of technical argument, bullying defended as making sure you have the right stuff to survive in a "meritocracy", etc. Thankfully we are generally not such a community. But try asking a few women you know in the Postgres community - if you can find any! - how their experience at conferences has been. Then ask if maybe there are still a few things we could work on changing.

I've found it quite confronting dealing with some of the more heated exchanges on hackers from some of our most prominent team members. I've sent the occasional gentle note to ask someone to chill and pause before replying, too. And I've deserved to receive one a couple of times, though I never have, as I'm far from free from blame here.

People love to point to LKML as the way it "must" be done to succeed in software. Yet slowly that community has also come to recognise that verbal abuse under the cloak of technical discussion is harmful to quality discussion and drives out good people, harming the community long term. Sure, not everything has to be super-diplomatic, but there's no excuse for verbal bullying and wilful use of verbal aggression either. As widely publicised, even Linus has recently recognised aspects of this, despite being the poster child of proponents of abusive leadership for decades.

We don't have a culture like that. So in practice, I don't imagine the CoC will see much use. The real problematic stuff that happens in this community happens in conference halls and occasionally by private mail, usually in the face of a power imbalance that makes the recipient/victim reluctant to speak out. I hope a formal CoC will give them some hope they'll be heard if they do take the personal risk to speak up. I've seen so much victim blaming in tech that I'm not convinced most people experiencing problems will be willing to speak out anyway, but hopefully they'll be more so with a private and receptive group to talk to.

Let me be clear here, I'm no fan of trial by rabid mob. That's part of why something like the CoC and a backing body is important. Otherwise people are often forced to silently endure, or go loudly public. The latter tends to result in a big messy explosion that hurts the community, those saying they're victim(s) and the alleged perpetrator(s), no matter what the facts and outcomes. It also encourages people to jump on one comment and run way too far with it, instead of looking at patterns and giving people chances to fix their behaviour.

I don't want us to have this: https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spiraled-way-out-of-control/ . Which is actually why I favour a CoC, one with a resolution process and encouragement toward some common sense. Every player in that story was an idiot, and while none deserved the abuse and harrassment that came their way, it's a shame it wan't handled by a complaint to a conference CoC group instead.

I'd like the CoC to emphasise that while we don't want to restrain people from "calling out" egregious behaviour, going via the CoC team is often more likely to lead to constructive communication and positive change.