On 01/12/2016 07:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> On 01/12/2016 02:43 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> To me, this reads more like the document itself. I hope I have
>>> done justice to Josh's points as well as Tom's, although I would
>>> bet there are a number of people on the list that can improve on my
>>> effort here.
>
>> I read your whole document. It is not badly written and I would agree it
>> does read a bit more like a lot of the CoCs out there. My critique would
>> be that it adds words for the sake of adding words. The more words the
>> more ambiguity and the more nits to pick.
>
>> As we have all appeared to coalesce around v5, I would suggest that we
>> stick with it or gently modify v5 up to the point that it is something
>> that sticks.
>
> Um, you may have coalesced around v5, but I'm not sure there's consensus
> there. I agree with Kevin that his version looks a lot more like a real
> CoC. His is surely still amenable to some editing, but there are also
> things in your version that we can do without. Particularly the "not
> about being offended" line. That's pretty defensive and unwelcoming,
> IMO, and that isn't the image we want to project here.
Even with the V5? There is a pretty good point there IMO. It is very
easy to get offended over really stupid things (including just standard
miscommunication).
That said, I actually don't have a problem taking that point out and
making that V6.
JD
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.