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
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.
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
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
>> 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
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
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
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,
>>>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
>>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--
> 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
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
: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
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
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
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
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
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?
...@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
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
>>
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
49 matches
Mail list logo