Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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? You want us to name names? I've tried to leave specific peoples' names out of this; I don't think it would be helpful to them to dredge up old wounds. And I'm quite sure they wouldn't care to be contacted by somebody trying to "verify" things. > What evidence do we have that indicates this CoC would have likely resulted > in a different outcome? We have none, sure. But what *can* be confidently asserted is that doing nothing will result in no improvement. It'll also create the perception that we're actively uninterested in improving the situation, thus driving away people who might otherwise have joined the community. I'm getting a little tired of people raising hypothetical harms and ignoring the real harms that we're hoping to fix. Yes, this is an experiment and it may not work, but we can't find out without trying. If it turns out to be a net loss, we'll modify it or abandon it. regards, tom lane
