On 06/04/2018 01:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We are now asking for a final round of community comments.
> Actually, it's intentional that we are not saying that. The idea is
> that any interaction between PG community members is subject to the CoC,
> whether it takes place in postgresql.org infrastructure or not, so long as
> there is not another CoC that takes precedence (such as a conference's
> CoC). The reason for this is an unfortunate situation that took place in
> the FreeBSD community awhile back [1], wherein one community member was
> abusing another via Twitter, and their existing CoC failed to cover that
> because it had been explicitly written to cover only community-run forums.
> So we're trying to learn from that mistake, and make sure that if such a
> situation ever came up here, the CoC committee would have authority to
> act.
O.k. I can see that. The problem I am trying to prevent is contributor X
being disciplined for behavior that has nothing to do with
PostgreSQL.Org. I am not sure what the exact good solution is for that
but it is none of our business if contributor X gets into a fight
(online or not) with anyone who is not within the PostgreSQL.Org community.
Thanks,
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. *****
