Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 24/01/16 18:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote: [---] > This is something that I brought up in protest because I believe that it > is crucial to the growth of this community. Do you have any evidence to support this belief? (Without referring to an anonymous invisible mass, a single case or

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/26/2016 09:03 AM, Jan Danielsson wrote: On 24/01/16 18:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, This thread is deprecated. The CoC Final Draft has been submitted to -core for final modification, acceptance or decline. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc.

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

To: Jan Danielsson; pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2] On 01/26/2016 09:03 AM, Jan Danielsson wrote: > On 24/01/16 18:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, This thread is deprecated. The CoC Final Draft has been submitted to -core for final modification, accepta

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

Hello, This thread is deprecated. The CoC Final Draft has been submitted to -core for final modification, acceptance or decline. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

>> Participation does not need to be limited to copy-editing. Of all the >> ways to develop a community CoC, we're engaged in just about the worst >> possible one right now. > > so what would be a better way of developing this ? Of interesting note, the Ruby community is currently considering

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, Brian Dunavant wrote: Of interesting note, the Ruby community is currently considering switching to a CoC inspired directly from this draft of a Postgres CoC. The extremely long conversation can be viewed at: https://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004 again, people

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

Just to respond to Josh's previous question: Yes, I ike the current code of conduct. Much prefer to the alternatives offered aimed at "feeling safe" (for the reason that keeping the peace in a culturally diverse community will not allow people that luxury all the time). I am not convinced we

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/23/2016 04:00 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > >> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake >> wrote: >> >> This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, >>>

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:15 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote: > Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will come up > with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval. -core will then > also define how they want implement it (or even turn

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 1/24/2016 2:51 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this point, let the high passions moderate a bit, and talk about the process. That is the detail in which the devils will live. Oh, save us from that.my

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 02:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: How do you define “in the Pg community”? Is it someone who has posted to a known forum at least once? Someone who has been to a conference? What if they have never participated in a community forum, but use PostgreSQL at work? Maybe they would

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 02:41 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) == What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution mechanism. If someone feels the CoC

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > In retrospect I revoke my support of this idea entirely. It just isn't our > jurisdiction. If doesn't happen in our yard then it isn't our business. Then know that the current draft of the CoC is easily interpreted

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 02:59 PM, Chris Travers wrote: But I will be crystal clear on my (deeply political ;-) viewpoint here: I do not want to see the PostgreSQL community get hijacked by groups that want to push Western values on the rest of the world. I want to see us come together and build one heck

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:09 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > so what would be a better way of developing this ? This needs to come from -core, and then commented on as a complete policy, not just CoC with maybe enforcement provisions later. Not because we're a dictatorship, but

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > You are wrong and the fact that we have gone from a motion style, to a story > style, to a continually and incrementally improving draft proves it. This is > the largest feature the community has tried to design and

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 1/24/2016 5:52 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: Participation does not need to be limited to copy-editing. Of all the ways to develop a community CoC, we're engaged in just about the worst possible one right now. so what would be a better way of developing this ? -- john r pierce,

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 02:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: 1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails community to deal with it. 2. If person B is in the Pg community they can request help. I am open to wording on #2. I tried a couple of times but had trouble not making it a

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 05:20 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:15 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote: Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will come up with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval. -core will then also

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 02:51 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, "David E. Wheeler" wrote: I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked. I think those need to put in place at the same time. It's very hard to judge how good or bad a CoC

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add > these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC? > >> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler >>

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 09:39 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Sarcasm is not productive. Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the first paragraph, but not the second :p The most significant problem I see

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 09:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote: If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread. And as for being not helpful, I was being

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:52 PM, S McGraw wrote: > On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > > I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add > > these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC? > > > >> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 02:34 AM, Chris Travers wrote: We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers. The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let whatever

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 24 January 2016 at 17:34, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when > -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That position > was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Sarcasm is not productive. Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the first paragraph, but not the second :p The most significant problem I see with the Contributor Covenant (other than my

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 24 January 2016 at 14:53, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. > > Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC? Sure, why not? Forget that at least 50% (I'm being generous) of the contributors to the

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

-- > From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto: > pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler > Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01 > To: Josh Drake > Cc: Psql_General (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2] > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 07:36 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

:01 To: Josh Drake Cc: Psql_General (E-mail) Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2] On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, > productive, and collaborative place for any person wh

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote: If I could make one proposal for an additional clause: * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we support). We expect communication in community fora to

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to > be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread. And as for being not helpful, I was being helpful and my helpful and reasoned points were

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > > If I could make one proposal for an additional clause: >> >> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any >> political question aside from its

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

Josh, Two changes I would like to the Coc as it stands: > * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free > of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. Change the word "must" to "try to". You yourself said some people have called you sexist and against obese

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

id(ChkNet); Postgres General Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2] On 24 January 2016 at 14:53, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <farjad.fa...@checknetworks.com> wrote: > I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. > > Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC? Sure, why not?

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

...@commandprompt.com] Sent: 24 January 2016 17:31 To: Geoff Winkless; FarjadFarid(ChkNet); Postgres General Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2] On 01/24/2016 07:36 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that > you will provide ind

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Chris Travers wrote: >> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any >> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we >> support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this >>

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 02:14 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic. Would that be off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization? If they make

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 11:28 AM, Chris Travers wrote: That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community doesn't care,

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/24/2016 12:28 PM, Chris Travers wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake > > wrote: On > 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > > If I could make one proposal for an additional clause: > > * PostgreSQL is a

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > O.k. now I am starting to see your point. For example: o_O > Pg person A is harassing person B in the Rails community. > > How do we deal with that? > > 1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) == What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution mechanism. If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do they talk to? How does

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: > What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution > mechanism. If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do they talk to? > How does that person or entity resolve things? What

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, "David E. Wheeler" wrote: > I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked. I think those need to put in place at the same time. It's very hard to judge how good or bad a CoC is absent a reporting mechanism. I'd respectfully

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:14 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jan 24, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Chris Travers > wrote: > > >> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any > >> political question aside from its usage in the public

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On 01/23/2016 04:00 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute to the PostgreSQL

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, > productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to > contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative >

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 01/21/2016 12:40 PM, Steve Litt wrote: "Disruption of the collaborative space" is almost meaningless, and almost guarantees selective enforcement. On the other hand, "patterns of behaviour which the majority of the core team consider to be harassment" is crystal clear. What would happen if

[GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

Hello, I have been in Pasadena the last few days and wasn't able to respond. I believe we are very close to finishing this up. Based on the comments I have seen in the previous CoC [Final] thread, I have come up with the following: == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) == This

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 21 January 2016 at 12:36, Chris Travers wrote: > I still side with the Scandinavian approach of passing general laws and > trusting judges to apply them in line with moral rather than purely legal > principles. I believe that it's generally accepted that people will

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 21 January 2016 at 11:28, Chris Travers wrote: > Resisting the urge to talk about how justice was actually seen in the Dark > Ages Pitchforks. Baying crowds dragging those they consider to be wrongdoers from their beds and tying them to four horses and pulling

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 11:28, Chris Travers > wrote: > > Resisting the urge to talk about how justice was actually seen in the > Dark > > Ages > > Pitchforks. Baying crowds dragging those

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 10:37, Chris Travers > wrote: > > At the end of the day this will require human judgment rather than > > formulation. > > Then make it explicit. > > * Disruption of the

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 20 January 2016 at 20:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > "which could be considered" is too open-ended. Since this point is > the one and only that can cause enforcement to occur, it should be more > strict as to what it is that will not be tolerated. I'd propose >

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 20 January 2016 at 20:04, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > "which could be considered" is too open-ended. Since this point is > > the one and only that can cause enforcement to occur, it

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 21 January 2016 at 10:37, Chris Travers wrote: > At the end of the day this will require human judgment rather than > formulation. Then make it explicit. * Disruption of the collaborative space, or patterns of behaviour which the majority of the core team consider to

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:43:26 + Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 10:37, Chris Travers > wrote: > > At the end of the day this will require human judgment rather than > > formulation. > > Then make it explicit. > > * Disruption of

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have > received no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we > can reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft. > > This

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in > a pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not > be tolerated. Perhaps changing the ", or participate" to " by engaging" would make that statement more focused. > "Disrupting the collaborative space"

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 20 January 2016 at 15:19, Brian Dunavant wrote: >> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in >> a pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not >> be tolerated. > > Perhaps changing the ", or participate" to " by engaging"

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 20 January 2016 at 19:05, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Simon Riggs > wrote: > > On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake > wrote: > > >> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 18 January 2016 at 18:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views. >> >> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free >>

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:05:15PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants >>> should always assume good intentions. ... > That came about because of the point made by someone for whom > English is a second language, who attempted to

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) == > > This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, > productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to > contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative >

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 20 January 2016 at 19:14, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:05:15PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > >>> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants > >>> should always assume good intentions. > ... > > That came about because

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:02:33 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" wrote: > * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in > a pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not > be tolerated. This one might come back to bite you. I, along with

[GENERAL] CoC [Final]

Hello, O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have received no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we can reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft. This final draft incorporates all reasonable feedback I have received as well as

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a > pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be > tolerated. Personally, I was comfortable with the rest of it, but

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Joshua D. Drake wrote: > This final draft incorporates all reasonable feedback I have received as > well as rewriting it in a more conversational tone from Kevin Grittner's > efforts. Looks great to me. Thanks for all your efforts in this.

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 01/18/2016 10:15 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be tolerated.

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:02:33AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have received > no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we can > reasonably consider this Final or at least Final Draft. While the verbiage seems

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 01/18/2016 10:38 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:02:33AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: O.k. so I let every thing sit with V7 for several days and we have received no further feedback. I believe we have reached a point where we can reasonably consider this Final or at

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 18/01/2016 19:36, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/18/2016 10:15 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake >> wrote: >> >>> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a >>> pattern of behaviour which could