Coc qa pgcon2016

= Code Of Conduct Q&A at pgCon 2016 =
Current Draft of CoC
Q: how many on committee?
A: depends on volunteers.
Q: how may incidents should we expect?
A: goal is 0. Comparatively, another community Stacey works with has 1 per year.
A: the Core team has 3 or 4 things reported in the last 5 years.
Q: Is this at conferneces? Is it postgresql.org forums only? 
A: That's hard to answer, because of private messages, we couldn't make it postgresql.org forums only. We drew the line at conferences because they usually have their on NPO and own CoC. The intention is mainly to govern online interactions.
Q: Converences vs. Online?
A: Conferences need to have different kinds of CoCs. For example, you can't take two weeks to resolve some incidents. And conference organizers don't want to use someone else's CoC. And sometimes there's local laws.
Q: What if the conference doesn't handle things appropriately?
A: It's not our authority, it's the conferences's CoC.
Q: What if the complaint is about the conference organizer?
A: Then we would need to handle that. Mind you, the most we could do is deny them access to the PostgreSQL.org media.
A: Reminding folks that the core team, etc. doesn't control conferences and meetups.
Q: This document seems to have two purposes, one which is the CoC and one which is procedural for the committee. Maybe there should be a separate committee charter?
A: Dave thinks it's good that we do both things at once so that we have one place to go. We might want to suppliment that with a FAQ.
A: We want community members to know who is going to be reviewing cases, that it's not a mysterious groups.
Q: What about confidentiality?
A: That needs to be spelled out, will make revisions. Most reports will be completely confidential.
A: That's like harassment investigations in a workplace. Nobody other than the two parties know the report.
Q: Retention policy for reports?
A: TBD, should probably be added somewhere.
Q: There isn't anything about how the CoC committee members are replaced. 
A: Yes, we need to add that. The assumption was at the pleasure of the core team, but maybe we need more specific rules.
Q: What about attacks on people's political views?
A: Those *could* be personal, but it seems unlikely. That would need to be handled case-by-case.
Q: Commit privs aren't mentioned.
A: Not specifically, it was assumed that it was included in "community spaces". Should be "including but no limited to".
Q: isn't "sharing private discussions" anti-opensource? Or overrreach? What about technical ideas shared in private?
A: Well, technical ideas aren't covered by the CoC. We're talking about personal ideas & feelings. 
A: Maybe the wording could be adjusted; it's not really about technical discussions.
A: We also need to cover technical ideas if there's unreasonable sharing of private ideas, for things like product internals.
A: There are a lot of grey areas. The Committee needs to act as "reasonable people" to resolve those.
Q: Does the committee start investications on its own?
A: No, it only responds to reports.
Q: Need to define how we communicate things like who got banned, since that can't be confidential. We need to communicate with the infra committee.
A: Yes, we do.
A: Maybe we need a separate process document. That could be something we develop as we go, because we can't know everything we'll encounter.
Q: We need a revision policy for the CoC itself.
A: Yes, we do.