On 06/04/2018 05:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> writes:
>> If we're going to move on from that (as I assume), as to the content
>> of the CoC itself, can I echo others' comments that
>
>>> engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into disrepute,
>
>> is far too open to interpretation.
>
> Yeah, it's fuzzy, but as Steve Atkins notes downthread, black and white
> is hard to get to in this game. I do not think dropping the provision
> altogether would be a good thing, nor would lawyering it to death be an
> improvement. We're better off applying Justice Stewart's "I know it
> when I see it" approach.
>
Yeah, I think we have to be careful to not overdue this. We need to come
at this with, "Everyone has the best intentions" else it is just going
to fail.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
*** A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is. ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****
