Re: A motion - Mailing list pgsql-general

I hate to say so folks, but I think Roxanne and Adrian and all those others that said similar things are right.

We have created a sustained disruption in a mailing list that is supposed to be about purely technical PostgreSQL
topics.  
It's bad for a Coc to start off by everyone involved in contributing to its formation violating it.

At this point I feel we should:

a) Move this to pgsql-advocacy --- I really think this is more of an advocacy topic as it's about making people feel
welcome.  
Besides looking at the advocacy list, no one has said anything since January 18
http://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-advocacy/2016-01/,  
so they shouldn't be too bothered with our rants as we try to make PostgreSQL community a better place for everybody.
In fact a lot of advocacy people I think would be more likely to care, than people coming to a general list looking for
technicalhelp. 

Or

b) Start a new PostgreSQL mailing list - call it -  pgsql-coc.  Encourage all that are interested in this topic to
join.

Again Roxanne, Adrian, and all those ready to throw us under the bus for disrupting their technical space, I am truly
sorry.
I would like to think I speak for others in this discussion, that they are sorry too.

Thanks,
Regina



-----Original Message-----
From: Roxanne Reid-Bennett [mailto:rox@tara-lu.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 9:00 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: A motion

On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
>>> Adrian Klaver wrote:
>>>> Motion:
>>>>
>>>> The Coc  discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can
>>>> argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with
>>>> technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted
>>>> to the Postgres web site for consideration.
>>>
>>> Been suggested already, and rejected:
>>>
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56970135.6060203@computer.org
>>
>> I'm an optimist.
>
> With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If
> you don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the
> round file.

I've drafted any  number of emails to respond to some point in the CoC
discussion and chosen to NOT sent them... primarily because I don't see
that my opinion needs to be expressed individually - others have
expressed the general gist... and what I would likely say will just
contribute to noise.

I am pretty much attempting to ignore the threads at this point,
skipping through them to find the technical discussions.  You are
welcome to respond with a regex that will filter them for us - I haven't
found one that will catch
every thread.

But this is where I will chip in... IMHO (and apparently Adrian's as
well) the  CoC discussion became a "sustained disruption" of the
communal space - and I'll add -  a long time ago.

+1 to Adrian's suggestion - move it into it's own list.  That Adrian is
finding it necessary to leave the -GENERAL list due to the noise... is
Irony with a capital "I" given your stated reasons for the group needing
a CoC.

Roxanne