>Geoff wrote
>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an input. Just yours.
WOW! Then I suggest put it in Coc.
-----Original Message-----
From: gwinkless@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkless@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 12:48
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right
On 22 January 2016 at 12:08, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <farjad.farid@checknetworks.com> wrote:
>
> But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their businesses no product will ever stay relevant to
endusers for long.
Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> So everyone's problem and comment is relevant and valuable.
> Even though the postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and naturally have a greater say.
Well no. The Postgresql developers can decide whether everyone else's comments are relevant to them and, if they decide
otherwise,they can say "no, thanks, we don't want to do that. There are several other products that might help you,
feelfree to use those."
Eventually, the people who are asking for those things will either move to a different database, or become developers
eitherwithin postgres or in a fork. That is how Open Source works.
> We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is trying to educate you.
I'm not objecting to people trying to educate me, I'm objecting to your implication that those people who do not want a
CoCare simply uneducated. I think it's fairly clear, given the amount of discussion that has gone on, that the people
whostill don't think it's necessary are likely to have reached an educated conclusion to that effect.
> The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective and what is wrong with learning something new?
Oh, I see! It's not you who is causing me upset, but rather my fault for taking it that way?
You really don't see the irony in that, given the context of the discussion?
Geoff
