On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:
>> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.
>
> Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else"
> to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable?
> Because the only way in which I can see it doesn't align with the
> Contributor Covenant is that the CoC doesn't consider someone's
> personal opinions, either private or expressed outside the Postgresql
> arena, to be the responsibility of the Postgres team.
If this is the latest:
http://postgresql.nabble.com/CoC-Final-td5882762.html
Then:
> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views.
This point allows anyone who has been reported for a violation to say that they simply have an opposing point of view,
andwhy can’t you respect that? It’s an out for anyone in violation.
> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
This allows a violator to claim ignorance. The “I didn’t know I was being harassing!” ‘defense’ works. It plays into
the“geeks are bad at social” fallacy, and completely ignores that a lot of abusers intentionally craft “oh I didn’t
know”stories/personas to get away with their abuse.
> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
> should always assume good intentions.
This allows the “I didn’t realize my tone was off, can’t you assume I have good intentions?” defense.
> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a
> pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be
> tolerated.
This should point to a policy for handling violations. What does “will not be tolerated” mean? It needn’t be spelled
outin the CoC, but it must be spelled out and pointed at from the CoC.
This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don’t want to be misunderstood. There is a lot
hereto let violators protect themselves in the event of a reported violation, but little to make vulnerable people feel
safe.It is the latter that needs to be the message of the CoC, not the former.
Those of us who fear offending without meaning to, or being misunderstood, can best serve the aims of a CoC -- openness
andsafety -- by being open to learning from our mistakes rather than trying to defend them on the basis of intent.
Best,
David