Greetings, * Benjamin Scherrey (scherrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Christophe Pettus <xof@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Not at all. The need for a CoC is not theoretical. Real people, > > recently, have left the community due to harassment, and there was no > > system within the community to report and deal with that harassment. > > I keep hearing this claim. I've followed up and tried to verify them. Sorry > but "trust me" doesn't cut it here any more than "trust me this will make > Postgres go faster" would on a code change. What's the context for this? > What evidence do we have that indicates this CoC would have likely resulted > in a different outcome? Without that then your claim does not even rise up > to the standard of theoretical. Frankly this claim does not seem very > plausible to me at all. Let's try to keep our standards here. I'm not > trying to harp on you personally, it's just that you're the unlucky > umpteenth time I've seen this claim made with zero satisfaction. While I can't say for sure, I feel reasonably confident that the level of proof you're asking for here isn't going to be forthcoming as it's a matter that Core has decided is best kept private, not unlike what we would expect the CoC Committee to do in instances where appropriate, possibly at the request and/or agreement of the individual or individuals involved. So while I can understand why you're asking, it's not particularly useful to continue to do so. Specific suggestions about how to change the proposed CoC would be useful, but the ongoing discussion about if one is needed is not. Thanks! Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
