Oliver Elphick wrote: > (Replying to the digest post) > > Having watched this discussion from the start, I think the project > would be better off without any CoC. The list has always been > conducted well and if something isn't broken you shouldn't try to fix > it.
FWIW, I agree that we don't need a CoC. However, those of us who have never been attacked/abused would naturally state that there have never been any attacks/abuses, and I believe that's false -- in other words I believe some people would consider themselves to have been attacked/abused, even if some external observers might not necessarily agree that they were being attacked/abused. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
