Re: CoC [Final v2]

From: Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>
To: "Psql_General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CoC [Final v2]
Date: 2016-01-24 22:51:48
Message-ID: FB6D8197-FC54-4F18-8A7D-E0E84456788C@thebuild.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


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.

--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof(at)thebuild(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Victor Yegorov 2016-01-24 22:59:18 Re: A motion
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2016-01-24 22:48:29 Re: CoC [Final v2]