On 23 January 2016 at 23:39, David E. Wheeler <da...@justatheory.com> wrote: > I get that my short, snarky posts don’t help my argument, but I admit to > being a bit frustrated that the posts wherein I have tried to lay out a > position get little or no response. So let me try again.
They get a response; however it's not the response you want, so you seem to ignore it. > 1. Items in the current draft of the CoC can be manipulated by abusers to > claim that they were just expressing an opinion or were ignorant of their > tone. No, they can't. I've explained elsewhere how this is not the case, you haven't responded. > 2. This document has been written and edited, in the main, by people who have > not, to my knowledge, experienced the kind of abuse we want to prevent. [snip] > I think we should bring in the expertise to help us craft a document that’s > likely to be the most effective. Feel free to bring them in, but be aware of the absolute limits of what the postgres community is prepared to be responsible for. > As a result, the FreeBSd core weren’t willing to take action on threats > because they didn’t happen on the mailing list — despite them happening in a > venue where the committer publicly identified himself as a member of the > project. > > The proposed CoC does not cover this situation, either, at least not as > directly as it should. No. It shouldn't. That's the point that everyone is trying to make to you and the point that you are stubbornly refusing to accept. > This isn’t about compromise, mind. If what we want to do is to let people > know that they are safe from abuse in this community and from members of this > community, that we take abuse seriously and will act on reports > expeditiously, then I don’t see how the proposed CoC get us there. It doesn't help that you appear to be hearing and not listening. Geoff -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
