| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, "Psql_General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CoC [Final v2] |
| Date: | 2016-01-25 01:15:54 |
| Message-ID: | 56A5774A.9090903@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 01/24/2016 02:51 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked.
>
> I think those need to put in place at the same time. It's very hard to judge how good or bad a CoC is absent a reporting mechanism.
>
> I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this point, let the high passions moderate a bit, and talk about the process. That is the detail in which the devils will live.
Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will
come up with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval.
-core will then also define how they want implement it (or even turn us
down). We are just doing some of the hard work for them so that they see
what the community and majority of contributors come up with.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christophe Pettus | 2016-01-25 01:20:51 | Re: CoC [Final v2] |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-01-25 01:13:03 | Re: CoC [Final v2] |