Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-27 Thread Berend Tober
Adrian Klaver wrote: Motion: The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted to the Postgres web site for consideration. Been

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Hello, This thread is deprecated. The CoC Final Draft has been submitted to -core for final modification, acceptance or decline. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-25 Thread John McKown
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote: > Although it has been previously disregarded, I would like to second the > motion that all further discussion regarding the CoC go to it's own list. > > Consider this. > 1. The Coc will eventually apply to ALL

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-25 Thread Roxanne Reid-Bennett
On 1/25/2016 12:55 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote: Regina Obe wrote: At this point I feel we should: ... While I personally feel that a code of conduct does not need to be an explicit document and is something that "happens" through the way people on the lists behave and the way the core team and

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-25 Thread Melvin Davidson
Although it has been previously disregarded, I would like to second the motion that all further discussion regarding the CoC go to it's own list. Consider this. 1. The Coc will eventually apply to ALL PostgreSQL mail lists. 2. There will be a need to have additions and revisions to the Coc. 3. As

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-25 Thread Albe Laurenz
Regina Obe wrote: > At this point I feel we should: > > a) Move this to pgsql-advocacy [...] > Or > > b) Start a new PostgreSQL mailing list - call it - pgsql-coc. -1 While I personally feel that a code of conduct does not need to be an explicit document and is something that "happens"

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-24 Thread Roxanne Reid-Bennett
On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Adrian Klaver wrote: Motion: The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-24 Thread Joshua Berkus
- Original Message - > > > > On Jan 24, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Roxanne Reid-Bennett wrote: > > > >> On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: > Adrian Klaver

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-24 Thread Regina Obe
I hate to say so folks, but I think Roxanne and Adrian and all those others that said similar things are right. We have created a sustained disruption in a mailing list that is supposed to be about purely technical PostgreSQL topics. It's bad for a Coc to start off by everyone involved in

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-24 Thread rob stone
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 17:27 -0500, Dane Foster wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:00 PM, bret_stern ment.com> wrote: > > Adrian, > > I hope you reconsider. You have far more value to the list. > > The CoC dictators will flame out, then where will we be. > > Just sit

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-24 Thread Neil
> On Jan 24, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Roxanne Reid-Bennett wrote: > >> On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Adrian Klaver wrote: > Motion: > > The Coc

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-24 Thread Chris Travers
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-01-23 15:31:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If you > > don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the round > > file. > >

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-24 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 01/23/2016 03:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Adrian Klaver wrote: Motion: The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-24 Thread Dane Foster
​ On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:00 PM, bret_stern < bret_st...@machinemanagement.com> wrote: > Adrian, > I hope you reconsider. You have far more value to the list. > The CoC dictators will flame out, then where will we be. > Just sit on the sidelines until the show is > over. > Look forward to the

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-24 Thread bret_stern
om: Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> Date: 01/24/2016 12:10 PM (GMT-08:00) To: "Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com>, Berend Tober <bto...@computer.org>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] A motion On 01/23/2016 03:3

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-24 Thread Victor Yegorov
2016-01-24 22:10 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver : > Thought long and hard about this and while it is possible, it is not > something I feel I should have to do. This conversation in its many threads > has spun out of control and into areas that a) out of the scope of this >

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-23 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Adrian Klaver wrote: Motion: The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with technical questions. Upon a decision

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-23 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Adrian Klaver wrote: Motion: The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted to the

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-23 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-01-23 15:31:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If you > don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the round > file. It'd help if there weren't six, but one thread... -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-23 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 01/23/2016 03:40 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-01-23 15:31:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If you don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the round file. It'd help if there weren't six, but one

Re: [GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-23 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 01/23/2016 03:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Adrian Klaver wrote: Motion: The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to

[GENERAL] A motion

2016-01-23 Thread Adrian Klaver
Motion: The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted to the Postgres web site for consideration. Thanks, -- Adrian Klaver