Re: CoC [Final v2]

From: Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>
To: "FarjadFarid(ChkNet)" <farjad(dot)farid(at)checknetworks(dot)com>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CoC [Final v2]
Date: 2016-01-24 15:36:36
Message-ID: CAEzk6ffSefu7QPW32BO8v0mHjFQTjjv0wa+2uDw2sUsXzQoWhQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 24 January 2016 at 14:53, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
<farjad(dot)farid(at)checknetworks(dot)com> wrote:
> I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.
>
> Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?

Sure, why not? Forget that at least 50% (I'm being generous) of the
contributors to the thread disagree, we'll just do what you want
because you're jumping on every thread and forcing your opinion on the
list.

We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that
you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come
about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to
pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it
actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or
you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter
what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or
against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities
and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC.

I'm sure that'll be fine, yes?

Geoff

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Travers 2016-01-24 15:37:48 Re: CoC [Final v2]
Previous Message FarjadFarid(ChkNet) 2016-01-24 14:53:09 Re: CoC [Final v2]