I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the group because you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you off-list. On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive discussion. >> >> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive. > > It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past. Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time. As a group the postgres team have decided the level to which they wish to make it clear that they welcome everyone. What they will not agree to do is leave members open to the SJWs that have abused the existing Covenant. If you were to bother to read the discussions you would know this, and to deny that you could find anything about it on the internet is frankly disingenuous, because typing "contributor covenant issues" brings up references to Opalgate on the second page. The Covenant deliberately and explicitly bars a significant proportion of the world's population who disagree with its principles. The Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to be an acceptable compromise. Anyone who considers that they are entitled to require the postgres team to commit to behave in a way with which they are uncomfortable is actively unwelcome. Why is that unreasonable? Geoff -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
