----- Original Message -----
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Roxanne Reid-Bennett <rox@tara-lu.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
>
> +1, except I worry that my silence will be drowned out by the "sustained
> disruption"
Eh, it's been a fairly long time since a PostgreSQL mailing list was consumed by a sustained flamewar. It almost seems
overdue.
However, while I personally support the desire for a CoC, I also feel that a freewheeling discussion on pgsql-general
isunlikely to produce any useful result. I'd be happy to see the discussion go to some other venue, be it another list
orsomething else. Given that the Project has been without a published CoC for literally decades, it would be better to
bedeliberate than precipitate.
--Josh Berkus
