>> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views. >> >> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free >> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. >> >> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants >> should always assume good intentions. >> >> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a >> pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be >> tolerated.
> I suggest we remove point 3 entirely. Point 2 is sufficient to limit what is > said.
That came about because of the point made by someone for whom English is a second language, who attempted to complement someone by saying the work was "gross" (meaning "a big thing"), when that was initially taken as an insult (thinking "disgusting" was meant). Perhaps it belongs more in the preamble or could be omitted, but it was an attempt to recognize that simple miscommunication due to language or cultural differences can turn into flame wars if people don't give each other some benefit of the doubt.
Which means that anyone who violates point 2 cannot be held to account, because doing so would violate point 3.
I agree it is a great idea to assume the good intentions of others, but its a difficult principle to enforce.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
