On 09/18/2018 01:47 PM, James Keener wrote:
> following a long consultation process
It's not a consultation if any dissenting voice is simply ignored.
Don't sugar-coat or politicize it like this -- it was rammed down
everyone's throats. That is core's right, but don't act as everyone's
opinions and concerns were taken into consideration.
I respectfully disagree.
I'm not sure which dissenting voices you think were ignored, but from
what I've observed in the various CoC threads the core team took the
time to respond to all comments. That does not necessarily mean the
resulting CoC makes everyone happy, but unfortunately that's not quite
possible. And it does not mean it was not an honest consultation.
IMO the core team did a good job in listening to comments, tweaking the
wording and/or explaining the reasoning. Kudos to them.
There are a good number of folks who are concerned that this CoC is
overreaching and is ripe for abuse. Those concerns were always
simply, plainly, and purposely ignored.
No, they were not. There were multiple long discussions about exactly
these dangers, You may dislike the outcome, but it was not ignored.
> Please take time to read and understand the CoC, which is intended to
ensure that PostgreSQL remains an open and enjoyable project for anyone
to join and participate in.
I sincerely hope so, and that it doesn't become a tool to enforce social
ideology like in other groups I've been part of. Especially since this
is the main place to come to get help for PostgreSQL and not a social club.
Ultimately, it's a matter of trust that the CoC committee and core team
apply the CoC in a careful and cautious way. Based on my personal
experience with most of the people involved in both groups I'm not
worried about this part.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
