On 06/05/2018 04:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
>>> Not at all. The need for a CoC is not theoretical. Real people,
>>> recently, have left the community due to harassment, and there was no
>>> system within the community to report and deal with that harassment.
>
>> I keep hearing this claim. I've followed up and tried to verify them. Sorry
>> but "trust me" doesn't cut it here any more than "trust me this will make
>> Postgres go faster" would on a code change. What's the context for this?
>
> You want us to name names? I've tried to leave specific peoples' names
> out of this; I don't think it would be helpful to them to dredge up old
> wounds. And I'm quite sure they wouldn't care to be contacted by
> somebody trying to "verify" things.
>
>> What evidence do we have that indicates this CoC would have likely resulted
>> in a different outcome?
>
> We have none, sure. But what *can* be confidently asserted is that doing
> nothing will result in no improvement. It'll also create the perception
> that we're actively uninterested in improving the situation, thus driving
> away people who might otherwise have joined the community.
>
> I'm getting a little tired of people raising hypothetical harms and
> ignoring the real harms that we're hoping to fix. Yes, this is an
> experiment and it may not work, but we can't find out without trying.
> If it turns out to be a net loss, we'll modify it or abandon it.
Good to hear this is considered an experiment.
To that end will there be quarterly/yearly reports, suitably anonymized,
that spell out the activity that took place with reference to the CoC?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
