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
