subject:"Re\: Code of Conduct"

The preceding's pretty simple. An attacker goes after an individual,
> presumably without provocation and/or asymetrically. The attacked
> person is on this mailing list. IMHO this attacker must choose between
> continuing his attacks, and belonging to the Postgres community.
>
> What's tougher is the person who attacks groups of people.
>
>
The preceding's pretty simple. An "attacker" voices their political opinions
or other unorthodoxy or unpopular stance, but in no way directs it at the
postgres user base or on a postgres list. The "attacked"
person is on this mailing list. IMHO this "attacker" must choose between
continuing to voice their opinion, and belonging to the Postgres community.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Steve Litt

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:19:59 -0700
"Joshua D. Drake"  wrote:

> I agree that within Postgresql.org we must have a professional code
> of conduct but the idea that an arbitrary committee appointed by an 
> unelected board can decide the fate of a community member based on 
> actions outside of the community is a bit authoritarian don't you
> think?
> 
> JD

You know the member inspected by the committee is free to start an
alternative Postgres community, if things get that bad. A LUG I once
founded started getting too abusive in their email, so I started a
second LUG, where people like me could communicate without what we
considered overt extraneous bullshit.

If this committee truly becomes authoritative, as perceived by a
significant portion of membership, the organization will fork.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Steve Litt

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:10:38 -0400
James Keener  wrote:

> > I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> >
> > it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> > moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> > people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and
> > Twitter.

The preceding's pretty simple. An attacker goes after an individual,
presumably without provocation and/or asymetrically. The attacked
person is on this mailing list. IMHO this attacker must choose between
continuing his attacks, and belonging to the Postgres community.

What's tougher is the person who attacks groups of people.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Steve Litt

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:18:12 +
Martin Mueller  wrote:

> I have followed this list for a couple of years, have benefited
> several times from quick and helpful advice,  and wonder whether all
> this code of conduct stuff is a solution in search of a problem. 

No, it's not. Talk to anyone outside the mainstream in a way that it
would be costly, in money or safety, for them to proclaim their
differences from the rooftops.

> My
> grandchildren were taught that “please and thank you sound so
> nice  manners are important, be polite” sung to the tune of Frère
> Jacques. They don’t always remember it,  but a longer poem wouldn’t
> help.

And indeed, if everybody were taught these things and lived by them,
including not saying bad stuff about groups of people, not making jokes
about groups of people, and calling people what they want to be called,
there would be no need at all.

But there are people who think that a Geek gathering is a really good
place to grope females. There are people who have no problem piling on
the unfortunate, perhaps because their misfortunes are God's punishment
for their sins (then why not be nice and leave the punishment to God?).
There are those who just love to cause trouble. There are really bad
people out there, and we need to define what's allowed and what's not
so these people can't cause damage, and that's why we have CoCs.

As far as behavior in other venues, I'm sure there are people out there
who would object to some of the stuff in some of my books. I've tried
my best to make my books unhurtful, but truth be told, if my books
(which don't name or resemble anyone on this list) run afoul of the
CoC, I'd have to resign from the list. I suggest treading very
carefully when discussing, in the Postgres CoC, peoples' behavior in
other venues.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Tom Lane

Robert Haas  writes:
> It's not clear to me that there IS a general consensus here.  It looks
> to me like the unelected core team got together and decided to impose
> a vaguely-worded code of conduct on a vaguely-defined group of people
> covering not only their work on PostgreSQL but also their entire life.

There's been quite a lot of input, from quite a lot of people, dating
back at least as far as a well-attended session at PGCon 2016.  I find
it quite upsetting to hear accusations that core is imposing this out
of nowhere.  From my perspective, we're responding to a real need
voiced by other people, not so much by us.

> However, I also don't think it matters very much.

Yeah, this.  The PG community is mostly nice people, AFAICT.  I'll be
astonished (and worried) if the CoC committee finds much to do.  We're
implementing this mostly to make newcomers to the project feel that
it's a safe space.

It's also worth reminding people that this is v1.0 of the CoC document.
We plan to revisit it in a year or so, and thereafter as needed, to
improve anything that's causing problems or not working well.

regards, tom lane

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 01:17 PM, Chris Travers wrote:

> And frankly I am probably being paranoid here though I find paranoia is a
> good thing when it comes to care of databases and computer systems.  But I
> do worry about the interactions between the PostgreSQL community and the
> larger world with things worded this way.

"The issue isn't whether you're paranoid, it's whether you're paranoid
enough"

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Martin Mueller

On 9/14/18, 12:50 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote:

On 09/14/2018 07:41 AM, James Keener wrote:
> > Community is people who joined it
>
> We're not a "community."

I do not think you are going to get very many people on board with that
argument. As anyone who knows me will attest I am one of the most
contrarian members of this community but I still agree that it is a
community.

As Bill Clinton said in another context, "it all depends on the meaning of
'community'". 'Community' is a very tricky word with uncertain boundaries and
variable degrees of belonging to it. Moreover, it's reciprocal: 'you' and the
'community' may have different ideas of whether or how you belong. Rules in
communities are usually tacit. You might almost want to say that if you need to
write rules you no longer have a community. Writing community rules is a very
and probably hopeless endeavor.

For quite a while the word 'community' has been grossly overused and has often
been invoked as a way of creating a sense of community where there is reason to
doubt whether the thing is there in the first place.

'Civil' and 'civility' are more modest words with more modest goals that are
perhaps easier to capture in language. When it comes to a code of civil
conduct, less is more. If you use more than the words of the ten commandments
you almost certainly have gone too far. I have yet to see a posting on this
list that would suggest an urgent need for trying to regulate what contributors
say or how they say it.

--
Command Prompt, Inc. ||
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__the.postgres.company_=DwICaQ=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk=RJwS1VI8elhlnCutR_Pulg0oUzeSh5KpHQs0EJSdr04=3RBPPMk6HiBPEHYfzKDsP-DZxFvRs5NCYc9LKGXjpdE=
|| @cmdpromptinc
*** A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is. ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__postgresconf.org=DwICaQ=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk=RJwS1VI8elhlnCutR_Pulg0oUzeSh5KpHQs0EJSdr04=ZiPaHw5gfja9OJeMGlTHieS-paSoyTHYC35rTgkwv_U=
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Peter Geoghegan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Dimitri Maziuk  wrote:
> Personally I would like that. Others might prefer an invitation to
> unsubscribe or forever hold their peace, I could live with that too, but
> I believe explicit opt-ins are preferable to opt-outs.

I think that it's a legitimate position to be opposed to a CoC like
this. I also think it's legitimate to feel so strongly about it, on
philosophical or political grounds, that you are compelled to avoid
participating while subject to the CoC. FWIW, the latter position
seems rather extreme to me personally, but I still respect it.

In all sincerity, if you're compelled to walk away from participating
in mailing list discussions on a point of principle, then I wish you
well. That is your right.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:47 PM Peter Geoghegan  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk 
> wrote:
> > So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
> > people access to postgresql community support channel?
>
> Yes.
>
> > "Because
> > somebody who may or may not be the same person, allegedly said something
> > somewhere that some other tweet disagreed with on faceplant"?
> >
> > Great plan if you do for-pay postgresql support for the living.
>
> You can make your own conclusions about my motivations, just as I'll
> make my own conclusions about yours. I'm not going to engage with you
> on either, though.
>

With regard to the  concerns about authoritarianism, I have to defend the
Code of Conduct here.

It's not anything of the above.  The PostgreSQL project has a pretty good
track record of ensuring that people can participate across boundaries of
culture, ethnicity, political ideology (which is always informed by culture
and ethnicity), and the like.  On the whole I trust the committee to make
sound judgments.

The thing is, yes it is scary that someone might be effectively denied
access to commons based on false accusations, but it is also concerning
that people might be driven away from commons by aggressive harassment (on
or off list) or the like.  The code of conduct is a welcome step in that
goal.  I think we should trust long-standing communities with a track
record of being generally cultivating access to the commons with decisions
which foster that.   The fact is, at least I would hope we all agree that

This is basic governance.  Communities require arbitration and management
of the economic commons we build together and this is a part of that.  I am
pretty sure that's why the expansive wording was included.  And I support
the right of the committee to act even for off-list behavior when it is
appropriate to do so.  That part, I am not questioning.  I think that's
important.

So I think a lot of the hysteria misses the point.  We have good people.
We have a generally good track record of getting along.  We have a track
record of not being mean to eachother because of differences in political,
social, religious, etc. belief.  The committee as a custodian of this
community can't really take the hard sides on divisive issues that we might
expect in, say, an American corporation like Mozilla or Google.  I think
people who worry about this don't get the weight of responsibility that
will be placed on such individuals to support a breathtakingly diverse
international project and keep the peace, giving people room for civic
engagement even on divisive issues.

And frankly I am probably being paranoid here though I find paranoia is a
good thing when it comes to care of databases and computer systems.  But I
do worry about the interactions between the PostgreSQL community and the
larger world with things worded this way.

> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Robert Haas

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Dave Page  wrote:
> That wording has been in the published draft for 18 months, and noone
> objected to it that I'm aware of. There will always be people who don't like
> some of the wording, much as there are often people who disagree with the
> way a patch to the code is written. Sooner or later though, the general
> consensus prevails and we have to move on, otherwise nothing will ever get
> completed.

It's not clear to me that there IS a general consensus here.  It looks
to me like the unelected core team got together and decided to impose
a vaguely-worded code of conduct on a vaguely-defined group of people
covering not only their work on PostgreSQL but also their entire life.
It is not difficult to imagine that someone's private life might
include "behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into
disrepute."

However, I also don't think it matters very much.  The Code of Conduct
Committee is going to consist of small number of people -- at least
four, perhaps a few more.  But there are hundreds of people involved
on the PostgreSQL mailing lists, maybe thousands.  If the Code of
Conduct Committee, or the core team, believes that it can impose on a
very large group of people, all of whom are volunteers, some set of
rules with which they don't agree, it's probably going to find out
pretty quickly that it is mistaken.  If people from that large group
get banned for behavior which is perceived by other members of that
large group to be legitimate, then there will be a ferocious backlash.
Nobody wants to see people who are willing to contribute driven away
from the project, and anyone we drive away without a really good
reason will find some other project that welcomes their participation.
So the only thing that the Code of Conduct Committee is likely to be
able to do in practice is admonish people to be nicer (which is
probably a good thing) and punish really egregious conduct, especially
when committed by people who aren't involved enough that their absence
will be keenly felt.

In practice, therefore, democracy is going to win out.  That's both
good and bad.  It's good because nobody wants a CoC witch-hunt, and
it's bad because there's probably some behavior which legitimately
deserves censure and will escape it.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Stephen Frost

Greetings,

* Dimitri Maziuk (dmaz...@bmrb.wisc.edu) wrote:
> On 09/14/2018 12:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk  
> > wrote:
> >> So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
> >> people access to postgresql community support channel?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> A question to TPTBs, then: once The Great Plan is implemented, will I be
> automagically unsubscribed from all postgres lists because I did not
> explicitly agree to abide by The Rules And Regulations back when I
> susbscribed?

The short answer is: probably.  We have been working for a while to
implement a mechanism to get people to explicitly opt-in for certain
things, like having all posts made public, due to GDPR requirements, and
I'm kinda hoping that this gets folded into it.

Thanks!

Stephen

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 12:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk  
> wrote:
>> So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
>> people access to postgresql community support channel?
> 
> Yes.

A question to TPTBs, then: once The Great Plan is implemented, will I be
automagically unsubscribed from all postgres lists because I did not
explicitly agree to abide by The Rules And Regulations back when I
susbscribed?

Personally I would like that. Others might prefer an invitation to
unsubscribe or forever hold their peace, I could live with that too, but
I believe explicit opt-ins are preferable to opt-outs.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Joshua D. Drake


On 09/14/2018 07:41 AM, James Keener wrote:

> Community is people who joined it

We're not a "community."


I do not think you are going to get very many people on board with that 
argument. As anyone who knows me will attest I am one of the most 
contrarian members of this community but I still agree that it is a 
community.


JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Peter Geoghegan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk  wrote:
> So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
> people access to postgresql community support channel?

Yes.

> "Because
> somebody who may or may not be the same person, allegedly said something
> somewhere that some other tweet disagreed with on faceplant"?
>
> Great plan if you do for-pay postgresql support for the living.

You can make your own conclusions about my motivations, just as I'll
make my own conclusions about yours. I'm not going to engage with you
on either, though.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Lee Hachadoorian

While agreeing that there are good arguments that we are a "community" in a
prescriptive sense, I don't think the discussion about whether we
constitute a community is relevant. For at least 25 years "community" has
been applied to virtually any group of people, much to the chagrin of those
such as community organizers and members of religious and intentional
communities who prefer to restrict its usage to a prescriptive sense.

Regarding treating conduct as a matter of "professionalism" rather than
"community", possibly all of the examples offered in the section
Inclusivity and Appropriate Conduct--thing such as personal attacks and
negative comments, threats of violence, and unwelcome sexual attention--do
strike me as unprofessional conduct, although these behaviors have
frequently been tolerated in *many* professional settings. (This is not
even close to being a uniquely tech problem. I could list the industries,
but it would basically be cutting and pasting the list of NAICS codes.)

The CoC will have largely the same meaning if "community" is replaced by
"users and developers" in most places. I do *not* suggest we do so, (a) the
word "community" as used in the document is at this point common usage, (b)
it will be uglier prose, and (c) there would sometimes need to be
additional verbose clarification as to whether it meant "individual users
and developers" or "users and developers as a collective body", and
sometimes it even appears to mean "the Spirit of PosgreSQL". (That last
might be an exaggeration.)

The question of when two or more "users or developers" interacting outside
our common purpose is worthy of the attention of the CoC committee--e.g.
direct email between members, two people at a bar after a conference--is a
legitimate concern, but I do not think a clear line can be decided
beforehand. Someone who received a direct, insulting or threatening email
from someone else on this particular thread that did *not* get distributed
to the list, and does *not* reference this conversation at all, could
reasonably initiate a CoC complaint even though the harassing behavior did
not make use of PG infrastructure. Two long-time PG developers who become
friends, and have been friends for many years in a way that goes far beyond
their PG activities, should not initiate a CoC complaint, or have their
complaint taken seriously by the committee, if they get into a screaming
fight at a family barbecue over one of them serving soda to the other's
kid. There's a lot of gray area in the middle that I think cannot be
resolved ahead of time, but gray areas don't preclude a good faith attempt
to cover some kinds of "outside" interactions.

I do agree, however, that the language "community at large" is somewhat
vague. The phrase is only used once, and is pretty much dropped in the next
sentence which reverts to discussing "interactions between community
members". I can't tell whether it could mean (from most to least
restrictive) (a) someone who is considering adopting PG (so not already a
user or developer) and asks a question online, in which case the phrase
"community at large" is merely meant to forestall an argument about whether
a non-user is a "community member", (b) someone PG-adjacent, such as a
vendor for a competing product at a conference, who is harassed by a PG
booster, or (c) literally everyone.

Best,
--Lee

-- 
Lee Hachadoorian
Assistant Professor of Instruction, Geography and Urban Studies
Assistant Director, Professional Science Master's in GIS
Temple University

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Geoff Winkless

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 15:55 James Keener,  wrote:

>
>
> Yes. They can. The people who make the majority of the contributions to
>> the software can decide what happens, because without them there is no
>> software. If you want to spend 20 years of your life
>>
>
> So everyone who moderates this group and that will be part of the CoC
> committee will have had to have dedicated their life of pg?
>

No. The core developers get to decide the policy and who is best to enforce
it. It seems fair that the people who have contributed so much get to
decide what goes on in their name.

>
> Sure, they own the servers, they make the rules. I get it. I'm not
> entirely opposed to it, even if I think it's silly to ram something down
> the rest of the groups throats.
>

I agree with you. I'm just fed up with rerunning the same argument every 3
months every time a new CoC update comes out.

PS: Also, what's with the personal replies? If you don't want to say what
> you want to the whole group, I don't really have an interest in talking to
> you personally.
>

Sorry what? I replied offlist to your offlist reply to my onlist post,
since I assumed you had decided (correctly) that this was hardly the sort
of discussion that we should be clogging up other people's mailboxes with.

Geoff

>

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 12:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

> No CoC can possibly provide for every conceivable situation. Somebody
> has to interpret the rules, and it has to be possible to impose
> sanctions when the CoC is violated -- otherwise, what's the point?
> There are several checks and balances in place, and I for one have
> confidence in the process as outlined. It's imperfect, but quite a lot
> better than either the status quo, or a platitude about inclusivity.

So let me get this straight: you want to have a "sanctioned" way to deny
people access to postgresql community support channel?  "Because
somebody who may or may not be the same person, allegedly said something
somewhere that some other tweet disagreed with on faceplant"?

Great plan if you do for-pay postgresql support for the living.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Peter Geoghegan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:
> Sure and that is unfortunate but isn't it up to the individual to deal with
> it through appropriate channels for whatever platform they are on? All of
> these platforms are:
>
> 1. Voluntary to use
> 2. Have their own Terms of Use and complaint departments
> 3. If it is abuse there are laws
>
> I agree that within Postgresql.org we must have a professional code of
> conduct but the idea that an arbitrary committee appointed by an unelected
> board can decide the fate of a community member based on actions outside of
> the community is a bit authoritarian don't you think?

The choice of the committee members is hardly arbitrary. Having
committee members be appointed by core is more or less consistent with
how the community has always dealt with disciplinary issues. The
criteria used by core were discussed quite openly. While the risk that
the committee will yield their power in an "authoritarian" way seems
very small, it cannot be ruled out entirely. In fact, it hasn't been
ruled out by the draft CoC itself.

No CoC can possibly provide for every conceivable situation. Somebody
has to interpret the rules, and it has to be possible to impose
sanctions when the CoC is violated -- otherwise, what's the point?
There are several checks and balances in place, and I for one have
confidence in the process as outlined. It's imperfect, but quite a lot
better than either the status quo, or a platitude about inclusivity.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Evan Macbeth

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 should
>>> explain the reporter the purpose of CoC rather than automatically
>>> enforce it.
>>>
>>
>> So first, I think what the clause is trying to do is address cases where
>> harassment targeting a particular community member takes place outside the
>> infrastructure and frankly ensuring that the code of conduct applies in
>> these cases is important and something I agree with.
>>
>> However, let's look at problem cases:
>>
>> "I am enough of a Marxist to see gender as a

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 09:42 AM, Dave Page wrote:

> There are some fuzzy edges I guess (e.g. Slack), but in my mind it's always
> been anyone who participates in any of the projects communications channels.

Then you Sir are an evil ter'rist member of isis because your spoken
words are carried by the same air in the same atmosphere as theirs.
Please stand by while the black helicopters are being dispatched to your
current location, you will be shot in the face and dropped in the ocean
shortly.

Have a nice day
-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Stephen Frost

Greetings,

* James Keener (j...@jimkeener.com) wrote:
> > > I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore
> > than
> > > I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the
> > first
> > > time.
> >
> > Does the bartender get to kick you out if you get into a fight?  Or if
> > you're rude or inappropriate towards the waitress?  Yup, doesn't matter
> > if it's the first time you were in the bar or not.
>
> You're perverting and twisting my argument. Don't do that.

I was trying to follow your analogy.  My apologies that it's not a great
one, I raised that same concern in the part of my email you omitted.

> My comment was that I'm not part of the "community" of the bar by simply
> walking into the bar; not that the bar has to serve me.
> 
> Please try to argue only what's being argued and not what you think you're
> reading into my comments.

The point I was making is that these lists are more like the bar and the
list manager like the bartender.  Yes, actions outside of the lists can
impact if someone's allowed to participate on these lists.  There's, of
course, a test of reasonableness and things like disagreements about
political views expressed outside of these lists aren't likely to make
the CoC feel that someone isn't appropriate for participation, even if a
complaint is made, but that doesn't mean that only actions on the list
are considered.

(note that I'm not part of the CoC, nor core, this is my expression of
how I feel things should be, as a member of this community)

Thanks!

Stephen

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
wrote:

> On 09/14/2018 07:14 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>>
>> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
>>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
>>> the comments in this thread; see
>>>
>>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>>
>>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>>
>>
>> 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 is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has
>> no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full
>> stop.
>>
>
> I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...
>
> I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other
> software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they
> become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices, then
> they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we should have
> every right to sanction them by preventing them participating in our
> project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate.
>
>
> We all know that PostgreSQL is the only database we should use and anybody
> using a different one just hasn't been enlightened yet. :P
>
> I think we need to define community member. I absolutely see your point of
> the individual is a contributor but community member is rather ethereal in
> this context don't you think?
>

There are some fuzzy edges I guess (e.g. Slack), but in my mind it's always
been anyone who participates in any of the projects communications channels.


-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread David G. Johnston

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Tom Lane  wrote:

> [ Let's try to trim this discussion to just -general, please ]
>
> Robert Eckhardt  writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
> >  wrote:
> >> On 9/14/18 1:31 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 <
> http://postgresql.org>
>  infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that
> takes
>  precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
> >> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world,
> for
> >> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as
> 'community
> >> member' has no strict definition.
>
> > I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> > it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> > moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> > people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> Actually, that addition was in response to concerns that the previous
> version didn't delimit the intended scope of the document *at all*.
> So I would say it's more restricted now than the previous version.
>
> I feel that most of the concerns being raised today are straw men.
> If the PG lists were a place for political discussion, there'd be
> valid points to worry about as to whether a CoC might be used to
> stifle free speech.  But every example that's been given has been
> not merely off-topic but wildly so, so I don't find the discussion
> to be very realistic.
>

Are people who simply post on -general the occasional help going to be held
to the same standard (as impractical as that probably would be) as those
who are members of the committee or core?

Particularly for the those who are the "face" of the organization (and that
doesn't just mean core members or committers) the policy should not limit
itself to "interaction[s] between community members" and the sentence
should be, IMO, adjusted to loosen the "where" while tightening the "who".

Beyond that I don't object to writing out explicitly the option to consider
"external" activity - I doubt it will matter in practice and if the
situation is severe enough that it does then core could do what they want
anyway and deal with the fallout whether a CoC exists or whatever its
contents.  I do not believe that, for the typical community member with a
low profile, this will ever come into play.

David J.

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:10 PM, James Keener  wrote:

> I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
>
>> it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
>> moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
>> people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>>
>> these aren't a solution looking for a problem. If we just want to look
>> at the clusterfuck that is happening in the reddis community right now
>> we can see conversations spilling onto twitter and into ad hominem
>> vitriol.
>>
>
> You haven't established that this is both 1) the PG mailing list's problem
> and that 2) this can't and won't be used to retaliate against those holding
> unpopular viewpoints but aren't specifically harassing anyone.
>
> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
> appear
> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
> option.
>

If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as reports
and details of reports are to be kept confidential.


>
> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the mailing
> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the list.
> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>

The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
interact.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Ilya Kosmodemiansky



> On 14. Sep 2018, at 16:31, Ilya Kosmodemiansky  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could only heavily +1 this. I can get

I can’t get of course, sorry for typo


> from where comes the idea that community is only what happens just on 
> postgresql.org or just on some other channel community uses.



> . 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dave Page
>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>> 
>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

> To many of us, we absolutely are a community. Remember, there are people
> here who have been around for 20+ years, of which many have become close
> friends, having started working on PostgreSQL as a hobby. We have always
> seen the project as a community of like-minded technologists, and welcome
> others that wish to join, whether just to ask a single question or to hang
> around for the next 20 years. I do see your viewpoint, but I would counter
> that coming here for help (for example) is quite different from calling
> tech support at a vendor.
>

I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore than
I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the first
time.

As I said, the rules can and should apply within the list, but applying
them outside the list is odd and wreaks of authoritarianism.

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:51 PM Dave Page  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2018 07:36 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:21 PM, James Keener  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would
> counter that it's still a stain on me and something that will forever
> appear
> along side my name in search results and that the amount of time and
> stress it'd take me to defend myself would make my voluntarily leaving
> the community, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, my only
> option.
>

 If you had read the policy, you would know that wouldn't happen as
 reports and details of reports are to be kept confidential.

>>>
>>> That doesn't mean I won't be strung along and it doesn't mean that the
>>> attacker can't release those details. Remember, I'm worried
>>> about politically motivated attacks, and attacks meant to silence
>>> opposing viewpoints, not legitimate instances of harassment.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but an attacker can do that now. Having the CoC doesn't change
>> anything there, though it does give us a framework to deal with it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>

>
> People are shitheads. People are assholes. We're not agreeing to join
> some organization and sign an ethics clause when signing up for the
> mailing
> list.  The current moderators can already remove bad actors from the
> list.
> How they act outside of the list is non of this list's concern.
>

 The lists are just one of many different ways people in this community
 interact.

>>>
>>> So? We interact with people outside of specific groups all the time.
>>> Baring specific
>>> agreements to the contrary, why should any one group claim
>>> responsibility of my
>>> personal business?
>>>
>>
>> If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or
>> harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then it
>> becomes our business.
>>
>> If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and not
>> something the project would get involved in.
>>
>>
>> O.k. so this isn't clear (at least to me) within the CoC. I want to make
>> sure I understand. You are saying that if a community member posts on
>> Twitter that they believe gays are going to hell, reporting that to the CoC
>> committee would result in a non-violation UNLESS they referenced postgresql
>> within the post?
>>
>
> Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established this Code
> of Conduct for community interaction and participation in the project’s
> work and the community at large." basically says?
>
> And in the end, a broad scope is required to some extent.

I want to be clear about where my concern and objection is:

1.  I think PostgreSQL, as an international project with people from many
different walks of life and different cultures needs to stay out of culture
war topics or assigning truth values to political viewpoints to the extent
absolutely possible.  We do this today and we must continue to do this.
2.  Compared to the rest of the world, people from my culture (the US) have
a tendency to take disagreements regarding political policies, social
theories, etc. personally and see abuse/attack where mere disagreement was
present.  People making complaints aren't necessarily acting in bad faith.
3.  If we don't set the expectation ahead of time that we remain
pluralistic in terms of political philosophy, culture, then it is way too
easy to end up in a situation where people are bringing up bad press for
failing to kick out people who disagree with them.

Like it or not there are precedents for this in the open source community,
such as the dismissal of Brendan Eich, and in an international project with
developers from all kinds of cultures with different views on deeply
divisive issues, such conflicts could hurt our community.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Stephen Frost

Greetings,

(trimmed to -general, tho I don't know if it'll really help)

* James Keener (j...@jimkeener.com) wrote:
> > To many of us, we absolutely are a community. Remember, there are people
> > here who have been around for 20+ years, of which many have become close
> > friends, having started working on PostgreSQL as a hobby. We have always
> > seen the project as a community of like-minded technologists, and welcome
> > others that wish to join, whether just to ask a single question or to hang
> > around for the next 20 years. I do see your viewpoint, but I would counter
> > that coming here for help (for example) is quite different from calling
> > tech support at a vendor.
> 
> I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore than
> I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the first
> time.

Does the bartender get to kick you out if you get into a fight?  Or if
you're rude or inappropriate towards the waitress?  Yup, doesn't matter
if it's the first time you were in the bar or not.

> As I said, the rules can and should apply within the list, but applying
> them outside the list is odd and wreaks of authoritarianism.

This is more akin to an argument that the bartender can't ban you if you
got into a fight outside the bar- but it falls flat because, yeah,
they can.  Is the bartender likely to ban you because you made one rude
comment or said something on twitter that wasn't about their bar?
Probably not, but it doesn't mean it's not within their right to do so
if they found it particularly concerning (such as threats made against a
regular to the bar or such).

Ultimately, I do tend to agree with the other points made on this thread
that we end up throwing up a lot of 'straw men' attacks and that
analogies tend to not work out too well in the end, but that's part of
why we have a committee made up of reasonable people to consider a
particular complaint and address it, or not, as appropriate.

Thanks!

Stephen

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:16 PM Tom Lane  wrote:

> [ Let's try to trim this discussion to just -general, please ]
>
> Robert Eckhardt  writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Adrian Klaver
> >  wrote:
> >> On 9/14/18 1:31 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 <
> http://postgresql.org>
>  infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of Conduct that
> takes
>  precedence (such as a conference's Code of Conduct)."
>
> >> I second that objection. It is not in PGDG's remit to cure the world,
> for
> >> whatever form of cure you ascribe to. This is especially true as
> 'community
> >> member' has no strict definition.
>
> > I understand the concern, however, if you look at how attacks happen
> > it is frequently through other sites. Specifically under/poorly
> > moderated sites. For specific examples, people who have issues with
> > people on Quora will frequently go after them on Facebook and Twitter.
>
> Actually, that addition was in response to concerns that the previous
> version didn't delimit the intended scope of the document *at all*.
> So I would say it's more restricted now than the previous version.
>
> I feel that most of the concerns being raised today are straw men.
> If the PG lists were a place for political discussion, there'd be
> valid points to worry about as to whether a CoC might be used to
> stifle free speech.  But every example that's been given has been
> not merely off-topic but wildly so, so I don't find the discussion
> to be very realistic.
>

If the code of conduct limited conduct that related to postgresql.org
infrastructure, I would agree.  This one explicitly includes all kinds of
interactions which are beyond that.

I assume "all interaction between members" could include having a few beers
at a pub, or being in an argument over the scope of human rights on
facebook, and I think there are people who will read it that way.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:14 PM Dave Page  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake 
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>>
>> I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving.
>>> The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on
>>> the comments in this thread; see
>>>
>>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>>
>>> (That's the updated text, but you can use the diff tool on the page
>>> history tab to see the changes from the previous draft.)
>>>
>>
>> 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 is a complicated issue. On the one hand, postgresql.org has
>> no business telling people how to act outside of postgresql.org. Full
>> stop.
>>
>
> I'm going to regret jumping in here, but...
>
> I disagree. If a community member decides to join forums for other
> software and then strongly promotes PostgreSQL to the point that they
> become abusive or offensive to people making other software choices, then
> they are clearly bringing the project into disrepute and we should have
> every right to sanction them by preventing them participating in our
> project in whatever ways are deemed appropriate.
>

 Actually, the easier case here is not being abusive to MySQL users, as the
code of conduct really doesn't clearly cover that anyway.  The easier case
is where two people have a feud and one person carries on a harassment
campaign over various forms of social media.  The current problem is:

1.  The current code of conduct is not clear as to whether terms of
service/community standards of, say, Reddit, supersede or not, and
2.  The community has to act (even if it is includes behavior at a
conference which has its own code of conduct)

So I think the addition is both over inclusive and under inclusive.   It is
over inclusive because it invites a certain group of (mostly American)
people to pick fights (not saying this is all Americans).  And it is under
inclusive because there are cases where the code of conduct *should* be
employed when behavior includes behavior at events which might have their
own codes of conduct.

On the other side, consider someone carrying on a low-grade harassment
campaign against another community member at a series of conferences where
each conference may not amount to a real actionable concern but where the
pattern as a whole might.  There's the under inclusive bit.

So I don't like this clause because I think it invites problems and doesn't
solve issues.
-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

Re: Code of Conduct plan

>
> 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.


So because someone doesn't like what I say in a venue 100% separate from
postgres,  I have to subject myself, and waste my time, defending actions
in this (and potentially other groups who would also adopt overly broad
CoC) group.

One of the biggest drivers of plea-bargains for innocent people in the US
justice system is the expense of having to defend yourself. I find that to
be a travesty; why are we duplicating that at a smaller level?

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:57 PM, James Keener  wrote:

>
>
>> Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established
>> this Code of Conduct for community interaction and participation in the
>> project’s work and the community at large." basically says?
>>
>
> No? What's the "community at large"? To me that sounds like "all
> interactions" whether or not they're about postgres.
>

That wording has been in the published draft for 18 months, and noone
objected to it that I'm aware of. There will always be people who don't
like some of the wording, much as there are often people who disagree with
the way a patch to the code is written. Sooner or later though, the general
consensus prevails and we have to move on, otherwise nothing will ever get
completed.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Code of Conduct plan

2018-09-14 Thread Joshua D. Drake


On 09/14/2018 07:51 AM, Dave Page wrote:
If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or 
harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then 
it becomes our business.






If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business
and not something the project would get involved in.


O.k. so this isn't clear (at least to me) within the CoC. I want
to make sure I understand. You are saying that if a community
member posts on Twitter that they believe gays are going to hell,
reporting that to the CoC committee would result in a
non-violation UNLESS they referenced postgresql within the post?


Yes, I believe so. Isn't that what "To that end, we have established 
this Code of Conduct for community interaction and participation in 
the project’s work and the community at large." basically says?


Honestly, no. At least not to me especially when you consider the 
sentence right after that, "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)."


Based on your clarification, I am feeling better but the language 
doesn't read that way to me.


I wish this was easier but have we considered that all channels that we 
would be concerned with already have CoC's and therefore our CoC is 
fairly powerless? Sure they call them Terms of Use but that's what they 
are, Code of Conducts.


Thanks,

JD

--

Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
* Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *

Re: Code of Conduct plan

> > I fail to see how that makes everyone here part of a community anymore
> than
> > I'm part of the "community" of regulars at a bar I walk into for the
> first
> > time.
>
> Does the bartender get to kick you out if you get into a fight?  Or if
> you're rude or inappropriate towards the waitress?  Yup, doesn't matter
> if it's the first time you were in the bar or not.
>
>
You're perverting and twisting my argument. Don't do that.

My comment was that I'm not part of the "community" of the bar by simply
walking into the bar; not that the bar has to serve me.

Please try to argue only what's being argued and not what you think you're
reading into my comments.

Jim

Re: Code of Conduct plan