Re: CoC [Final v2]

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
To: Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>
Cc: "Psql_General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CoC [Final v2]
Date: 2016-01-24 22:48:29
Message-ID: DE1EB4AE-6B17-4D17-ADB0-221EE8049BCF@justatheory.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> wrote:

> What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution mechanism. If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do they talk to? How does that person or entity resolve things? What confidentiality promises are made?

I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked. But it need to be put in place at the same time, IME. Otherwise the CoC on its own has no teeth.

Best,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christophe Pettus 2016-01-24 22:51:48 Re: CoC [Final v2]
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2016-01-24 22:42:18 Re: CoC [Final v2]