| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com>, S McGraw <smcg4191(at)mtneva(dot)com>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CoC [Final v2] |
| Date: | 2016-01-25 01:44:55 |
| Message-ID: | ACA85E24-37D5-4FC8-AD5A-51B99E17D55C@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> In retrospect I revoke my support of this idea entirely. It just isn't our jurisdiction. If doesn't happen in our yard then it isn't our business.
Then know that the current draft of the CoC is easily interpreted as giving shelter to abusers.
> I would also note that this document isn't going to be the end all of enforcement. Ultimately -core has the final say. -Core can determine on its own if it wants to enforce against a particular community member (with or without the CoC).
Yep. And as Chrisophe pointed out, none of it will mean anything without an explicit and enforced policy for dealing with violations.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christophe Pettus | 2016-01-25 01:52:23 | Re: CoC [Final v2] |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-01-25 01:37:53 | Re: CoC [Final v2] |