Subject: Code of Conduct

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:27:56 +0100

The PostgreSQL Core team are pleased to announce that following a long
consultation process, the project’s Code of Conduct (CoC) has now been
finalised and published at https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/.

Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to
ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone to
join and participate in.

A Code of Conduct Committee has been formed to handle any complaints. This
consists of the following volunteers:

- Stacey Haysler (Chair)
- Lætitia Avrot
- Vik Fearing
- Jonathan Katz
- Ilya Kosmodemiansky

We would like to extend our thanks and gratitude to Stacey Haysler for her
patience and expertise in helping develop the Code of Conduct, forming the
committee and guiding the work to completion.

-- 
Dave Page
PostgreSQL Core Team
http://www.postgresql.org/
<http://www.postgresql.org/>

---

From: James Keener <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 07:47:46 -0400

> following a long consultation process

It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored. Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's opinions and concerns were taken into consideration. There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.

> Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone to join and participate in.

I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social ideology like in other groups I've been part of.  Especially since this is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club.

Jim

On September 18, 2018 6:27:56 AM EDT, Dave Page <[email-masked]> wrote:
>finalised and published at
>https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/.
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

---

From: Tomas Vondra <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:34:53 +0200

On 09/18/2018 01:47 PM, James Keener wrote:
> It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored.
> Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down
> everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's
> opinions and concerns were taken into consideration.

I respectfully disagree.

I'm not sure which dissenting voices you think were ignored, but from 
what I've observed in the various CoC threads the core team took the 
time to respond to all comments. That does not necessarily mean the 
resulting CoC makes everyone happy, but unfortunately that's not quite 
possible. And it does not mean it was not an honest consultation.

IMO the core team did a good job in listening to comments, tweaking the 
wording and/or explaining the reasoning. Kudos to them.

> There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is
> overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always
> simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.
No, they were not. There were multiple long discussions about exactly 
these dangers, You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored.

> ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone 
> to join and participate in.
> 
> I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social 
> ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this 
> is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club.
> 

Ultimately, it's a matter of trust that the CoC committee and core team 
apply the CoC in a careful and cautious way. Based on my personal 
experience with most of the people involved in both groups I'm not 
worried about this part.

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

---

From: James Keener <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:27:33 -0400

>
>  You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored.

I can accept that I don't like the outcome, but I can point to maybe a
dozen people in the last
exchange worried about the CoC being used to further political goals, and
the only response
was "well, the CoC Committee will handle it reasonable" which is not a good
answer, because
that's exactly the situation that we are worried about not happening! These
concerns were never
actually addressed and always just brushed aside -- that's what I found
bothersome and worrisome.

We shouldn't have to expect the rules to be applied fairly in order to
counter actual abuses of the
rules. I've seen it in other groups and have been the target of such
actions. (I had the gall to claim
that hiring practices that require submitting side- or open-source- work
aren't only detrimental to
women because they statistically shoulder more of the housework and
childcare, but also to
husbands and fathers who take an active role in the household and
childcare. It wasn't intended to
diminish the effect this hiring practice has on women, but to suggest that
it's a broader problem than
the conversation at that point was making it out to be. I was subsequently
silenced and eventually
booted from the group for that incident and another, in a social channel,
where a discussion on guns
was taking place and someone said that the discussion is sexist and this is
why there are so few
female programmers, and I had the impertinence to say that I know more
women who hunt and shot
for sport then men (it's ~50-50 in this area). Forgive me for not having a
favourable view of CoCs.)

So, it's not that I don't trust the CoC Committee, but I just really don't
trust most people. The clearer
the rules the better. As it stands, the rules are extremely vague and
overreaching.

Jim

---

From: Chris Travers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:08:09 +0200

> wording and/or explaining the reasoning. Kudos to them.

I said I would stand aside my objections after the last point I mentioned
them but I did not feel that my particular objection and concern with
regard to one specific sentence added got much of a hearing.  This being
said, it is genuinely hard to sort through the noise and try to reach the
signal.  I think the resurgence of the debate about whether we need a code
of conduct made it very difficult to discuss specific objections to
specific wording.  So to be honest the breakdown was mutual.

> these dangers, You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored.

Also those of us who had specific, actionable concerns were often drowned
out by the noise.  That's deeply unfortunate.

I think those of us who had specific concerns about one specific sentence
that was added were drowned out by those who seemed to be opposed to the
idea of a code of conduct generally.

I would have appreciated at least a reason why the concerns I had about the
fact that the addition a) doesn't cover what it is needs to cover, and b)
will attract complaints that it shouldn't cover was not considered valid.
But I can understand that given the noise-to-signal ratio of the discussion
made such discussion next to impossible.

Again I find that regrettable.

> experience with most of the people involved in both groups I'm not

I would actually go further than you here.  The CoC committee *cannot*
apply the CoC in the way that the opponents fear.  The fact is, Europe has
anti-discrimination laws regarding social and political ideology (something
the US might want to consider as it would help avoid problems on this list
;-) ).  And different continents have different norms on these sorts of
things.  Pushing a social ideology via the code of conduct would, I
suspect, result in everything from legal action to large emerging markets
going elsewhere.  So I don't think ti is a question of "trust us" but
rather that the community won't let that sort of abuse happen no matter who
is on the CoC committee.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

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

---

From: Stephen Frost <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:14:30 -0400

Greetings,

> specific wording.  So to be honest the breakdown was mutual.

I would ask that you, and anyone else who has a suggestion for how to
improve or revise the CoC, submit your ideas to the committee by
email'ing [email-masked].

As was discussed previously, the current CoC isn't written in stone and
it will be changed and amended as needed.

Thanks!

Stephen

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:35:54 -0400

> it will be changed and amended as needed.

The change process is spelled out explicitly in the CoC document.

I believe though that the current plan is to wait awhile (circa 1 year)
and get some experience with the current version before considering
changes.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Chris Travers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 20:40:16 +0200

> and get some experience with the current version before considering

My $0.02:

If you are going to have a comment period, have a comment period and
actually deliberate over changes.

If you are going to just gather feedback and wait a year, use some sort of
issue system.

Otherwise, there is no reason to think that feedback gathered now will have
any impact at all in the next revision.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

---

From: Julian Paul <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:24:29 +1000

On 18/09/18 20:27, Dave Page wrote:
> Please take time to read and understand theCoC, which is intended to 
> A Code of Conduct Committee has been formed to handle any complaints. 
> This consists of the following volunteers:
> 
> - Stacey Haysler (Chair)
> -LætitiaAvrot
> - Vik Fearing
> - Jonathan Katz
> - Ilya Kosmodemiansky
> 
> We would like to extend our thanks and gratitude to Stacey Haysler for 
> her patience and expertise in helping develop the Code of Conduct, 
> forming the committee and guiding the work to completion.
> 
> --
> Dave Page
> PostgreSQL Core Team

It's overly long and convoluted.

"inclusivity" Is a ideologue buzzword of particular individuals that 
offer very little value apart from excessive policing of speech and 
behaviour assumed to be a problem where none exist.

"Personal attacks and negative comments on personal characteristics are 
unacceptable, and will not be permitted. Examples of personal 
characteristics include, but are not limited to age, race, national 
origin or ancestry, religion, gender, or sexual orientation."

So just leaving it at "Personal attacks" and ending it there won't do 
obviously. I'm a big advocate of people sorting out there own personal 
disputes in private but...

"further personal attacks (public or *private*);"

...lets assume people don't have the maturity for that and make it all 
public.

"may be considered offensive by fellow members" - Purely subjective and 
irrelevant to a piece of community software.

There is much more in this CoC that is concerning and appears to follow 
the same methodology to be nothing more than a green light to those who 
have made their way within the inner hierarchy to run it like a overly 
politicized dictatorship.

I'm not sure if there is likely to be a large concerning number of 
people that are likely to violate this CoC. However, it is written in a 
such a way that will open it up to heavy handed abuse.

The fact that this CoC made it this far to be actually published is 
concerning and IMO alludes to requests for feedback to not be taken 
seriously. In fact I'm somewhat certain of this.

I assumed this was a open community with a large number of voluntary 
members. Remember this is a piece of software most end users don't know 
or even should care about.

K.I.S.S. That's my feedback.

Regards, Julian.

---

From: ERR ORR <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:30:56 +0200

I was never consulted.
I was only Told that there was a CoC "to be". Not when, not how.
A CoC will inevitably lead to the project taken over by leftists, political
and technical decisions will be made by others.
Most important from my PoV, the projects quality will decrease until its
made unviable.
As others have said, this was rammed down our throats.
Before you ppl become unemployed, read "SJWs always lie". You'll know what
awaits you.
As for myself, I'll be on the lookout for another DB. One that's not
infiltrated by leftist nuts.

And Dave, you can tell the core team a big "FUCK YOU" for this.

James Keener <[email-masked]> schrieb am Di., 18. Sep. 2018, 13:48:

> It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored. Don't
> sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down everyone's
> throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's opinions and
> concerns were taken into consideration. There are a good number of folks
> who are concerned that this CoC is overreaching and is ripe for abuse.
> Those concerns were always simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.
>
> ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this is
> the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club.
>
> Jim
>
>> her patience and expertise in helping develop the Code of Conduct, forming
>> the committee and guiding the work to completion.
>>
>> --
>> Dave Page
>> PostgreSQL Core Team

---

From: Fred Pratt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:27:23 +0000

Keep pg open and free.   This smells of PC police.   This community can police itself

Sent from my mobile device. Please pardon my brevity and typos.   I am not responsible for changes made by this device’s autocorrect feature.

Fred Pratt
AmerisourceBergen
Manager – IT Infrastructure
Micro Technologies

8701 CenterPort Blvd<x-apple-data-detectors://8>
Amarillo, TX  79108<x-apple-data-detectors://8>

Work: 806.372.2369 (Ext. 8364)<tel:806.372.2369;8364>
Fax: 855.849.0680<tel:855.849.0680>
Mobile: 806.679.1742<tel:806.679.1742>

microtechnologies.com<http://microtechnologies.com/>

On Sep 19, 2018, at 9:32 AM, ERR ORR <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

I was never consulted.
I was only Told that there was a CoC "to be". Not when, not how.
A CoC will inevitably lead to the project taken over by leftists, political and technical decisions will be made by others.
Most important from my PoV, the projects quality will decrease until its made unviable.
As others have said, this was rammed down our throats.
Before you ppl become unemployed, read "SJWs always lie". You'll know what awaits you.
As for myself, I'll be on the lookout for another DB. One that's not infiltrated by leftist nuts.

Jim

On September 18, 2018 6:27:56 AM EDT, Dave Page <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
The PostgreSQL Core team are pleased to announce that following a long consultation process, the project’s Code of Conduct (CoC) has now been finalised and published at https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/.

A Code of Conduct Committee has been formed to handle any complaints. This consists of the following volunteers:

- Stacey Haysler (Chair)
- Lætitia Avrot
- Vik Fearing
- Jonathan Katz
- Ilya Kosmodemiansky

We would like to extend our thanks and gratitude to Stacey Haysler for her patience and expertise in helping develop the Code of Conduct, forming the committee and guiding the work to completion.

---

From: Steve Litt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:16:58 -0400

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:30:56 +0200
ERR ORR <[email-masked]> wrote:

> A CoC will inevitably lead to the project taken over by leftists,

Here we go again.
 
SteveT

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

---

From: Francisco Olarte <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 20:02:58 +0200

> Keep pg open and free.   This smells of PC police.   This community can police itself
No comment on this, just kept for context.

> Sent from my mobile device. Please pardon my brevity and typos.   I am not responsible for changes made by this device’s autocorrect feature.

I will happily pardon brevity ( although I would not call a ten line
sig plus a huge bottom quote "breve", and AFAIK it means the same in
english as in spanish ) and/or typos, but the "I am not responsible"
feels nearly insulting. Did someone force you to use "this device" (
which you seem to perceive as inadequate for a nice answer ) to reply,
or did you choose to do it ? ( real, not rethoric question, but do not
answer if you feel  its inadequate )

As an aside, is this kind of afirmations and/or my response to it a
violation of the current CoC ?

Francisco Olarte.

---

From: Stephen Frost <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:07:37 -0400

Greetings,

> answer if you feel  its inadequate )

Let's please try to keep the off-topic discussion on these lists to a
minimum.

> violation of the current CoC ?

There's a way to find out the answer to that question, but it's
certainly not to send an email to this list asking about it.  Please
review the policy, and follow the process outlined there if you feel the
need to.

Thanks!

Stephen

---

From: Fred Pratt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 18:34:51 +0000

Sorry, I emailed using my company account and thus the long sig.   In an effort to avoid further insulting Mr Olarte, I will delete it this time.    See, Self-policing works !

Fred

---

From: Kevin Grittner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:27:46 -0500

> We would like to extend our thanks and gratitude to Stacey Haysler for her patience and expertise in helping develop the Code of Conduct, forming the committee and guiding the work to completion.

My thanks to all who participated.

FWIW, my view is that a CoC shares one very important characteristic
with coding style guides: it's not as important what the details are
as that you have one and everyone pays attention to it.  I was in an
early PGCon meeting on the topic, and offered some opinions early in
the process, so many of you may remember that my view was to keep it
short and simple -- a wide net with broad mesh, and trust that with
competent application nothing would slip through.

My biggest concern about the current document is that it is hard to
make it from start to end, reading every word.  To check my
(admittedly subjective) impression, I put it through the free
"Readability Test Tool" at
https://www.webpagefx.com/tools/read-able/check.php (pasting the
document itself into the "TEST BY DIRECT INPUT" tab so that page
menus, footers, etc. were not included in the score), and got this:

"""
Test Results:
Your text has an average grade level of about 16. It should be easily
understood by 21 to 22 year olds.
"""

Now, on the whole that doesn't sound too bad, since the audience
should be mature and educated enough to deal with that, but it does
suggest that it might be a bit of a burden on some for whom English is
not their first language (unless we have translations?).

Further detail:

"""
Readability Indices

Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease 32.2
Flesch Kincaid Grade Level 15.2
Gunning Fog Score 18.3
SMOG Index 13.9
Coleman Liau Index 14.8
Automated Readability Index 16

Text Statistics

No. of sentences 65
No. of words 1681
No. of complex words 379
Percent of complex words 22.55%
Average words per sentence 25.86
Average syllables per word 1.75
"""

Note that the page mentions that the Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease score
is based on a 0-100 scale. A high score means the text is easier to
read. Low scores suggest the text is complicated to understand.  A
value between 60 and 80 should be easy for a 12 to 15 year old to
understand.  Our score was 32.2.

Perhaps in next year's review we could try to ease this a little.

In the meantime, I was very happy to see the so many new faces at
PostgresOpen SV 2018; maybe it's just a happy coincidence, but if this
effort had anything to do with drawing in more people, it was well
worth the effort!

Kevin Grittner

--
Kevin Grittner
VMware vCenter Server
https://www.vmware.com/

---

From: Andrew Dunstan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:44:26 -0400

> My thanks to all who participated.

Indeed, many thanks.

[...]
> effort had anything to do with drawing in more people, it was well

Yeah. The crowd also seemed noticeably more diverse than I have usually 
seen at Postgres conferences. That's a small beginning, but it's a 
welcome development.

cheers

andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:30:58 -0400

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:24:29AM +1000, Julian Paul wrote:
> "inclusivity" Is a ideologue buzzword of particular individuals that offer
> very little value apart from excessive policing of speech and behaviour
> assumed to be a problem where none exist.
> 
> characteristics include, but are not limited to age, race, national origin
> or ancestry, religion, gender, or sexual orientation."
> 

You might notice that a bullet list was removed and those example items
were added 18 months ago:

	https://wiki.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Code_of_Conduct&diff=31924&oldid=29402

I realize that putting no examples has its attractions, but some felt
that having examples would be helpful.  I am not a big fan of the
"protected groups" concept because it is often exploited, which is why
they are listed more as examples.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

---

From: Chris Travers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:20:55 +0200

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:31 PM Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]> wrote:

> offer
> origin

I suspect most of us could probably get behind the groups listed in the
antidiscrimination section of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights at
least as a compromise.

Quoting the  English version:

"Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic
or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political
or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth,
disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."

The inclusion of "political or any other opinion" is a nice addition and
prevents a lot of concern.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 16:13:06 -0400

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 05:20:55PM +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> "Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or
> social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any
> other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability,
> age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."
> 

Huh.  Certainly something to consider when we review the CoC in a year.

---

From: Stephen Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:23:57 -0400

> Huh.  Certainly something to consider when we review the CoC in a year.

Too bad it wasn't brought up earlier.

-- Stephen