I hesitate to exacerbate what is a society-wide debate that is being worked
out across organizations across the spectrum, but if I may provide a
thought for consideration.
The framing and language of the Code of Conduct, as written and proposed,
includes a large number of checkpoints to protect those accused of
violations of the code of conduct: Confidentiality, the Good Faith clause
that actually puts risk on those who report behavior under the code, a
scaling of consequences that is weighted *heavily* towards providing second
and third chances to those who may be accused of violating the code.
In the examples that have been raised in this discussion, it would seem to
me to be unreasonable for an investigation to result in a finding that the
code had been violated to the extent that any kind of public consequence
would be warranted. Indeed, were the examples cited to be adjudicated under
this code, I am confident we as a community would discover the code to be
working as designed, rather than the opposite.
If the objection is to the possibility of being reported at all for your
own behavior that you believe is not in violation, that's a different
matter. But if that is the concern, than the objection is not to *this*
code of conduct but to ANY code of conduct, because any code of conduct is
inherently going to introduce risk of being reported for everyone. And if
you believe strongly that a given statement you may have made is not
objectionable...you should be willing to defend it in an adjudication
investigation. If you are not willing to defend it in an adjudication
investigation, then you are tacitly (at least) acknowledging the statement
was not in keeping withe standards represented by the code.
This code of conduct as written, in my opinion, merely holds every member
of our community responsible for owning our words and behavior, and the
consequences thereof. I believe that we are adult enough to be willing to
take responsibility for ourselves.
Just my $0.02.
Evan Macbeth
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:50 AM, James Keener wrote:
> I find a lot of neo-con/trumpian political stances moronic, short-sighted,
> and anti-intellectual and therefore consider them offensive, an affront on
> my way of life, and a stain on my country.
>
> 1) Can I report anyone holding such views and discussing them on a 3rd
> party forum?
>
> 2) Could I be reported for saying the above on a 3rd party forum?
>
> Obviously the pg mailing list isn't a place for such discussion, but is
> being a member of this community a deal with the devil to give up my right
> to free speech elsewhere?
>
> Jim
>
>
> On September 14, 2018 6:10:47 AM EDT, Chris Travers <
> chris.trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ilya Kosmodemiansky
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Chris Travers
>>> wrote:
>>> > I really have to object to this addition:
>>> > "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members,
>>> > whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure,
>>> so long
>>> > as there is not another Code of Conduct that takes precedence (such as
>>> a
>>> > conference's Code of Conduct)."
>>> >
>>> > That covers things like public twitter messages over live political
>>> > controversies which might not be personally directed. At least if
>>> one is
>>> > going to go that route, one ought to *also* include a safe harbor for
>>> > non-personally-directed discussions of philosophy, social issues, and
>>> > politics. Otherwise, I think this is asking for trouble. See, for
>>> example,
>>> > what happened with Opalgate and how this could be seen to encourage
>>> use of
>>> > this to silence political controversies unrelated to PostgreSQL.
>>>
>>> I think, this point has nothing to do with _correct_ discussions or
>>> public tweets.
>>>
>>> If one community member tweets publicly and in a way which abuses
>>> other community members, it is obvious CoC violation. It is hard to
>>> imagine healthy community if someone interacts with others correctly
>>> on the list or at a conference because the CoC stops him doing things
>>> which he will do on private capacity to the same people when CoC
>>> doesnt apply.
>>>
>>> If someone reports CoC violation just because other community member's
>>> _correct_ public tweet or whatsoever expressed different
>>> political/philosophical/religious views, this is a quite different
>>> story. I suppose CoC committee and/or Core team in this case
