I hate to say so folks, but I think Roxanne and Adrian and all those others that said similar things are right. We have created a sustained disruption in a mailing list that is supposed to be about purely technical PostgreSQL topics. It's bad for a Coc to start off by everyone involved in contributing to its formation violating it. At this point I feel we should: a) Move this to pgsql-advocacy --- I really think this is more of an advocacy topic as it's about making people feel welcome. Besides looking at the advocacy list, no one has said anything since January 18 http://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-advocacy/2016-01/ , so they shouldn't be too bothered with our rants as we try to make PostgreSQL community a better place for everybody. In fact a lot of advocacy people I think would be more likely to care, than people coming to a general list looking for technical help. Or b) Start a new PostgreSQL mailing list - call it - pgsql-coc. Encourage all that are interested in this topic to join. Again Roxanne, Adrian, and all those ready to throw us under the bus for disrupting their technical space, I am truly sorry. I would like to think I speak for others in this discussion, that they are sorry too. Thanks, Regina -----Original Message----- From: Roxanne Reid-Bennett [mailto:rox@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 9:00 PM To: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: A motion On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: >> On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: >>> Adrian Klaver wrote: >>>> Motion: >>>> >>>> The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can >>>> argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with >>>> technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted >>>> to the Postgres web site for consideration. >>> >>> Been suggested already, and rejected: >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56970135.6060203@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> I'm an optimist. > > With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If > you don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the > round file. I've drafted any number of emails to respond to some point in the CoC discussion and chosen to NOT sent them... primarily because I don't see that my opinion needs to be expressed individually - others have expressed the general gist... and what I would likely say will just contribute to noise. I am pretty much attempting to ignore the threads at this point, skipping through them to find the technical discussions. You are welcome to respond with a regex that will filter them for us - I haven't found one that will catch every thread. But this is where I will chip in... IMHO (and apparently Adrian's as well) the CoC discussion became a "sustained disruption" of the communal space - and I'll add - a long time ago. +1 to Adrian's suggestion - move it into it's own list. That Adrian is finding it necessary to leave the -GENERAL list due to the noise... is Irony with a capital "I" given your stated reasons for the group needing a CoC. Roxanne -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
