Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. I think you're forgetting the sequence of events. That was posted in Feb 2016. In May 2016 we posted a draft CoC which was open for public discussion, and was discussed extensively at a public meeting at PGCon in that same month [1], and the draft was subsequently revised a good bit as a result of that, and republished [2]. It's taken us (mainly meaning core, not the exploration committee) way too long to agree to a final draft from there, but claiming that there's been no public input is just wrong. > 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. Yeah, it's fuzzy, but as Steve Atkins notes downthread, black and white is hard to get to in this game. I do not think dropping the provision altogether would be a good thing, nor would lawyering it to death be an improvement. We're better off applying Justice Stewart's "I know it when I see it" approach. In reality I suspect actions under that provision will be quite rare. You'd need somebody to actually file a complaint, and then for the CoC committee to agree that it's a good-faith complaint and not a form of using the CoC as a weapon. Given reasonable people on the committee, that seems like it'll be a fairly high bar to clear. But, given an unambiguous case, I'd want the committee to be able to take action. regards, tom lane [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Coc_qa_pgcon2016 [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+OCxowroZoDXk0O9NpyXTJ9dTnD8RiPvJXxK4xD=dA5w7c=cg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
