On 23 January 2016 at 23:39, David E. Wheeler <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I get that my short, snarky posts don’t help my argument, but I admit to being a bit frustrated that the posts wherein I have tried to lay out a position get little or no response. So let me try again. They get a response; however it's not the response you want, so you seem to ignore it. > 1. Items in the current draft of the CoC can be manipulated by abusers to claim that they were just expressing an opinion or were ignorant of their tone. No, they can't. I've explained elsewhere how this is not the case, you haven't responded. > 2. This document has been written and edited, in the main, by people who have not, to my knowledge, experienced the kind of abuse we want to prevent. [snip] > I think we should bring in the expertise to help us craft a document that’s likely to be the most effective. Feel free to bring them in, but be aware of the absolute limits of what the postgres community is prepared to be responsible for. > As a result, the FreeBSd core weren’t willing to take action on threats because they didn’t happen on the mailing list — despite them happening in a venue where the committer publicly identified himself as a member of the project. > > The proposed CoC does not cover this situation, either, at least not as directly as it should. No. It shouldn't. That's the point that everyone is trying to make to you and the point that you are stubbornly refusing to accept. > This isn’t about compromise, mind. If what we want to do is to let people know that they are safe from abuse in this community and from members of this community, that we take abuse seriously and will act on reports expeditiously, then I don’t see how the proposed CoC get us there. It doesn't help that you appear to be hearing and not listening. Geoff -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
