Chris Travers <chris.travers@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Core has spoken that they will create one. I them that it will maintain > the general political neutrality of the community (and again for the > record, I don't see the topless dancer conference issue as one that > compromised that political neutrality either). So as far as I am > concerned, the question of do we need one is resolved. Just to correct the record: core has stated that we will set up an exploratory committee to investigate this topic. (I hope to have some news soon on progress on that, but not just yet.) There's a fair number of people who feel we don't need a CoC, and so I don't think we should prejudge the outcome of the discussion. In the meantime, it's been made pretty clear that a lot of people didn't like pgsql-general being overwhelmed by threads on this topic, which it was for awhile there in January. Possibly the answer is to create a new list dedicated to the topic, so that people who aren't interested don't need to read it. Again, I'd rather not prejudge how the exploratory committee will handle this exactly, but I'm sure they will choose some way of discussing the matter with the larger community. For now, let's try not to annoy the pgsql-general readership ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
