On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 at 22:47, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In any case, we went over all these sorts of arguments at excruciating > length in 2016. It's quite clear to the core team that a majority of > the community wants a CoC. I don't think any useful purpose will be > served by re-litigating that point. This is somewhat at odds with your message here. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18630.1454960447%40sss.pgh.pa.us It's rather disappointing that discussion was effectively silenced based on the implication that there would be time for further discussions before the implementation stage, only to have consultation deferred until late on in the implementation itself. If we're going to move on from that (as I assume), as to the content of the CoC itself, can I echo others' comments that > engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into disrepute, is far too open to interpretation. Geoff
