Martin Mueller <martinmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Which makes me say again "Where is the problem that needs solving?" We've re-litigated that point in each burst of CoC discussion for the last two-plus years, I think. But, one more time: * So far as the mailing lists alone are concerned, we likely don't really need a CoC; on-list incidents have been pretty few and far between. However, there *have* been unfortunate incidents at conferences and in other real-life contexts. Core has been encouraging conference organizers to create their own CoCs, but (a) they might want a model to follow; (b) there needs to be a community-level backstop in case of failure of a conference to have or enforce a CoC; and (c) conferences aren't the only point of contact between community members. * This isn't really directed at people who already participate in our mailing lists. The reason for setting up a formal CoC is to reassure potential new contributors that the Postgres project offers a safe environment for them. As has been pointed out before, a lot of people now feel that some sort of CoC is a minimum requirement for them to want to deal with a community. Whether you and I find that a bit too shrinking-violety isn't relevant; if we want to keep attracting new participants, we have to get with the program. Now, the hazard in that of course is that someone will come in and try to use the CoC mechanism to force the PG community to adopt that person's standards of conduct. It'll be up to the CoC committee (and core, in the case of appeals) to say no, what you're complaining about is well within this community's normal standards. That's a reason why a two-line CoC isn't a good idea; it leaves too much to be read into it. Anyway, the short answer here is that we've been debating CoC wording for more than two years already, and it's time to stop debating and just get it done. We're really not going to entertain "let's rewrite this completely" suggestions at this point. regards, tom lane