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

Hi PostgreSQL Community,

some points I like to make mainly because of observations of how other 
open source projects handle this topic:


1) CoC might result in developers leaving projects
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122922.html

2) CoC might result in not so equal peers and friends, might result in a 
committee which feels above their peers, and might promote conceit and 
denunciation. That is why some projects choose not to have one
https://freie-software.org/verein/coc.html - they say: "we're friends - 
that's our CoC, more would be harmful" [1]

3) https://shiromarieke.github.io/coc.html explains why there's no safe 
space and CoC won't change that (she's a queer woman who experienced 
harassment and sexual assault)


In related discussions, people recurringly ask not to establish a 
secondary judicial system but to use the already existing ones.


I hope these points can influence what is in the CoC or whether there 
will a CoC at all.
Personally, I find 2) a very good case against CoC (although I like the 
"we're friends - that's our CoC, more would be harmful").


Best,
Sven


On 03.06.2018 20:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Two years ago, there was considerable discussion about creating a
> Code of Conduct for the Postgres community, as a result of which
> the core team announced a plan to create an exploration committee
> to draft a CoC [1].  That process has taken far longer than expected,
> but the committee has not been idle.  They worked through many comments
> and many drafts to produce a version that seems acceptable in the view
> of the core team.  This final(?) draft can be found at
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

[1] Appendix - Google translation of the CoC of Freie Software:

Code of Conduct
Don't have it. Don't want to have.

That's the short version. The long version follows.

A "Code of Conduct" is a code of conduct in the sense of a set of norms 
intended to determine the behavior of addressees of the Code.

Thoughts on the normalization of the self-evident
If one reads current, relevant regulations, one finds that normal 
self-evident behaviors are normalized there. What is required there is 
the attitude and behavior of a reasonably reasonable, reasonably well 
behaved person.

That seems remarkable. Rules are set up when there is a risk that they 
will be broken. You should act on the addressee from the outside, 
because you fear that he will not behave properly without this impact.

Such a framework thus says something about the constitution of the 
community or society to which the rules apply. In this case, a 
reasonable behavior is obviously not (of course) obvious.

Among friends, the behaviors and attitudes described in the relevant 
regulations, such as respect, attention and helpfulness, 
non-discrimination, the will to cooperate, rule-free intercourse, etc., 
are self-evident. Friends behave as each other as required in these 
rules. At least most. If not always.

The biggest lump in the whole country ...
The relevant regulations then provide for the appointment of persons or 
bodies to whom, if one believes the rules have been violated, one can 
turn to oneself.

In most cases such a complaint is permissible not only in case of 
personal concern, but also if one thinks that the rules have been 
violated to the detriment of one or the other. Experience teaches that 
this often challenges behaviors that can kill any friendship. Knowing 
better and being feeling informers usually have only like-minded people 
as social contact.

But we do not want to promote either conceit or denunciation.

If someone does not behave as it is self-evident, then there are 
reasons. These can be different types. A clear word among friends in 
private or in a small circle is then helpful - for the "victim", as well 
as for the "perpetrator". The latter deserves respect, 
non-discrimination, attention, helpfulness and understanding. The latter 
should actually be self-evident, but it is often not the case when 
executing a Code of Conduct.

Nor is a rule-free, friendly dealing with the accused possible. The 
roles of the judge and a friend are incompatible. Friends meet at eye 
level; the judge has power and authority to exercise, even if he acquits.

Penalties among friends?
Finally, a Code of Conduct will include a sanctioning apparatus to 
sanction undesirable behavior. Deliberate addition of evils 
(punishments) among friends is a contradiction in terms.

 From this, it can be concluded that the moment a Code of Conduct takes 
effect, the friendship is already over. When we get to that point, we 
should dissolve our club, because then we failed - all together.

Therefore, we do not need and do not want a code of conduct in the sense 
of a set of rules.

Resistance to unreasonableness
Sometimes, in recent times, the demand for a code of conduct in the form 
of a corresponding set of rules is unfortunately linked with a 
(financial) aid offer. Help under such a condition we refuse.

Freedom, as we want to understand and live it, occasionally requires 
resistance to the imposition of doing something unreasonable and harmful.

Respectful help and patronage are incompatible. Freedom requires and 
requires maturity. We can not propagate freedom and accept paternalism.

We are friends. That is already in the name of our association. This is 
our "Code of Conduct". That is enough. More would be harmful.