Martin Mueller <martinmueller@northwestern.edu> writes:
> Which makes me say again "Where is the problem that needs solving?"
We've re-litigated that point in each burst of CoC discussion for the
last two-plus years, I think. But, one more time:
* So far as the mailing lists alone are concerned, we likely don't really
need a CoC; on-list incidents have been pretty few and far between.
However, there *have* been unfortunate incidents at conferences and in
other real-life contexts. Core has been encouraging conference organizers
to create their own CoCs, but (a) they might want a model to follow;
(b) there needs to be a community-level backstop in case of failure of
a conference to have or enforce a CoC; and (c) conferences aren't the
only point of contact between community members.
* This isn't really directed at people who already participate in our
mailing lists. The reason for setting up a formal CoC is to reassure
potential new contributors that the Postgres project offers a safe
environment for them. As has been pointed out before, a lot of people
now feel that some sort of CoC is a minimum requirement for them to
want to deal with a community. Whether you and I find that a bit too
shrinking-violety isn't relevant; if we want to keep attracting new
participants, we have to get with the program.
Now, the hazard in that of course is that someone will come in and
try to use the CoC mechanism to force the PG community to adopt that
person's standards of conduct. It'll be up to the CoC committee
(and core, in the case of appeals) to say no, what you're complaining
about is well within this community's normal standards. That's a
reason why a two-line CoC isn't a good idea; it leaves too much to
be read into it.
Anyway, the short answer here is that we've been debating CoC wording
for more than two years already, and it's time to stop debating and
just get it done. We're really not going to entertain "let's rewrite
this completely" suggestions at this point.
regards, tom lane
