A motion
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
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 suggested already, and rejected:
/messages/by-id/56970135.6060203@computer.org
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 Postgres web site for consideration.Been suggested already, and rejected:
I'm an optimist.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 on said list the result be posted
to the Postgres web site for consideration.Been suggested already, and rejected:
I'm an optimist.
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.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 deal with
technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted
to the Postgres web site for consideration.Been suggested already, and rejected:
I'm an optimist.
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.
Not sure why, there is precedence:
/messages/by-id/47227E15.6030205@agliodbs.com
JD
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 thread...
I tried to keep it to one but a few people decided the weeds were more
useful than a productive and constructive conversation.
I am continuing down the CoC that has been produced with productive and
constructive feedback over the last few weeks. If people would like to
contribute to that CoC that many contributors have already put quite of
bit of energy into, that is awesome. IF they want to continue to start
new threads that achieve nothing but an argument, I am done with those
(as of my last email on the subject).
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> 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 thread...
It would also help if threads were clearly marked in the subject ;-) Ok,
in context I can figure out what the motion probably concerns, but a
computer cannot.....
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
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 deal with
technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted
to the Postgres web site for consideration.Been suggested already, and rejected:
I'm an optimist.
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.
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 list b) into conduct that would fall a foul of some or all of
the various 'code' that have been proposed. I plead guilty to
contributing to at least some of the previous and that pains me. What
pains me even more is the decision I have reached, to unsubscribe from
--general. Filtered or not this list is not a place for me anymore and
continued participation will only anger me more and that goes places I
do not want to go. I will continue on other postgres-- lists as long as
they stay untainted.
JD
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 isover.Look forward to the next awesome year.My CoC: "keep it technical"
Fore
-------- Original message --------
From: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
Date: 01/24/2016 12:10 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>, Berend Tober <btober@computer.org>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] A motion
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 deal with
technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted
to the Postgres web site for consideration.Been suggested already, and rejected:
I'm an optimist.
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.
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 list b) into conduct that would fall a foul of some or all of
the various 'code' that have been proposed. I plead guilty to
contributing to at least some of the previous and that pains me. What
pains me even more is the decision I have reached, to unsubscribe from
--general. Filtered or not this list is not a place for me anymore and
continued participation will only anger me more and that goes places I
do not want to go. I will continue on other postgres-- lists as long as
they stay untainted.
JD
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:00 PM, bret_stern <
bret_stern@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 next awesome year.
My CoC: "keep it technical"Fore
+1 To Adrian sticking around. I'm relatively new to participating on this
list and PostgreSQL in general and you've been extremely helpful to me
personally in answering questions I've raised and providing
guidance/suggestions. I'm no fan of the CoC conversation either so I scan
then delete and go on w/ my day. It's a strategy that is working for me and
I hope you will adopt it and stick around. Newbies like myself need people
like on this list.
Regards,
Dane
2016-01-24 22:10 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>:
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
list b) into conduct that would fall a foul of some or all of the various
'code' that have been proposed. I plead guilty to contributing to at least
some of the previous and that pains me. What pains me even more is the
decision I have reached, to unsubscribe from --general. Filtered or not
this list is not a place for me anymore and continued participation will
only anger me more and that goes places I do not want to go. I will
continue on other postgres-- lists as long as they stay untainted.
Adrian,
Do not take emotional steps.
You're of a great value to the -general list. Let things settle down a bit
for a while — I'm quite sure list will come back to it's common shape.
Please, do not go :)
--
Victor Y. Yegorov
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 17:27 -0500, Dane Foster wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:00 PM, bret_stern <bret_stern@machinemanage
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 on the sidelines until the show is
over.
Look forward to the next awesome year.
My CoC: "keep it technical"Fore
+1 To Adrian sticking around. I'm relatively new to participating on
this list and PostgreSQL in general and you've been extremely helpful
to me personally in answering questions I've raised and providing
guidance/suggestions. I'm no fan of the CoC conversation either so I
scan then delete and go on w/ my day. It's a strategy that is working
for me and I hope you will adopt it and stick around. Newbies like
myself need people like on this list.Regards,
Dane
Plus one.
It's supposed to be a technical list.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 deal with
technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted
to the Postgres web site for consideration.Been suggested already, and rejected:
I'm an optimist.
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.
I've drafted any number of emails to respond to some point in the CoC
discussion and chosen to NOT sent them... primarily because I don't see
that my opinion needs to be expressed individually - others have
expressed the general gist... and what I would likely say will just
contribute to noise.
I am pretty much attempting to ignore the threads at this point,
skipping through them to find the technical discussions. You are
welcome to respond with a regex that will filter them for us - I haven't
found one that will catch
every thread.
But this is where I will chip in... IMHO (and apparently Adrian's as
well) the CoC discussion became a "sustained disruption" of the
communal space - and I'll add - a long time ago.
+1 to Adrian's suggestion - move it into it's own list. That Adrian is
finding it necessary to leave the -GENERAL list due to the noise... is
Irony with a capital "I" given your stated reasons for the group needing
a CoC.
Roxanne
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Jan 24, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Roxanne Reid-Bennett <rox@tara-lu.com> 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 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 suggested already, and rejected:
I'm an optimist.
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.
I've drafted any number of emails to respond to some point in the CoC discussion and chosen to NOT sent them... primarily because I don't see that my opinion needs to be expressed individually - others have expressed the general gist... and what I would likely say will just contribute to noise.
+1, except I worry that my silence will be drowned out by the "sustained disruption"
I am pretty much attempting to ignore the threads at this point, skipping through them to find the technical discussions. You are welcome to respond with a regex that will filter them for us - I haven't found one that will catch
every thread.But this is where I will chip in... IMHO (and apparently Adrian's as well) the CoC discussion became a "sustained disruption" of the communal space - and I'll add - a long time ago.
+1 to Adrian's suggestion - move it into it's own list. That Adrian is finding it necessary to leave the -GENERAL list due to the noise... is Irony with a capital "I" given your stated reasons for the group needing a CoC.
Roxanne
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
----- Original Message -----
On Jan 24, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Roxanne Reid-Bennett <rox@tara-lu.com> 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 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 suggested already, and rejected:
I'm an optimist.
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.I've drafted any number of emails to respond to some point in the CoC
discussion and chosen to NOT sent them... primarily because I don't see
that my opinion needs to be expressed individually - others have expressed
the general gist... and what I would likely say will just contribute to
noise.+1, except I worry that my silence will be drowned out by the "sustained
disruption"
Eh, it's been a fairly long time since a PostgreSQL mailing list was consumed by a sustained flamewar. It almost seems overdue.
However, while I personally support the desire for a CoC, I also feel that a freewheeling discussion on pgsql-general is unlikely to produce any useful result. I'd be happy to see the discussion go to some other venue, be it another list or something else. Given that the Project has been without a published CoC for literally decades, it would be better to be deliberate than precipitate.
--Josh Berkus
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: WM!86c4d710573bda80e9db5475f9281209c0f8e1486a3de111b7aa61221eaac487b6efe71874e0dc5c53df6457acee3e5a!@asav-1.01.com
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 contributing to its formation violating it.
At this point I feel we should:
a) Move this to pgsql-advocacy --- I really think this is more of an advocacy topic as it's about making people feel welcome.
Besides looking at the advocacy list, no one has said anything since January 18 http://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-advocacy/2016-01/ ,
so they shouldn't be too bothered with our rants as we try to make PostgreSQL community a better place for everybody.
In fact a lot of advocacy people I think would be more likely to care, than people coming to a general list looking for technical help.
Or
b) Start a new PostgreSQL mailing list - call it - pgsql-coc. Encourage all that are interested in this topic to join.
Again Roxanne, Adrian, and all those ready to throw us under the bus for disrupting their technical space, I am truly sorry.
I would like to think I speak for others in this discussion, that they are sorry too.
Thanks,
Regina
-----Original Message-----
From: Roxanne Reid-Bennett [mailto:rox@tara-lu.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 9:00 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: A motion
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 deal with
technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted
to the Postgres web site for consideration.Been suggested already, and rejected:
I'm an optimist.
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.
I've drafted any number of emails to respond to some point in the CoC
discussion and chosen to NOT sent them... primarily because I don't see
that my opinion needs to be expressed individually - others have
expressed the general gist... and what I would likely say will just
contribute to noise.
I am pretty much attempting to ignore the threads at this point,
skipping through them to find the technical discussions. You are
welcome to respond with a regex that will filter them for us - I haven't
found one that will catch
every thread.
But this is where I will chip in... IMHO (and apparently Adrian's as
well) the CoC discussion became a "sustained disruption" of the
communal space - and I'll add - a long time ago.
+1 to Adrian's suggestion - move it into it's own list. That Adrian is
finding it necessary to leave the -GENERAL list due to the noise... is
Irony with a capital "I" given your stated reasons for the group needing
a CoC.
Roxanne
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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" through the way people on the lists
behave and the way the core team and list maintainers handle problems,
pgsql-general is where the community meets, and that is where such a discussion
should take place.
If it annoys some people, so be it; if people express their dislike, that's
a statement as well. A code of conduct is about non-technical implications
of activity on the mailing lists, so using the non-technical nature of this
discussion as a reason to push it off the radar is counter-productive.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 list maintainers handle problems,
pgsql-general is where the community meets, and that is where such a discussion
should take place.
To a degree you have a very valid point - however wading through a
discussion over nuanced verbiage isn't of value to me (and at least a
few others). This discussion will not garner a visible opinion from
the vast majority of those who read this list, and most likely, the vast
majority of those on this list don't really care about the discussion at
all other than not wanting the Postgres *community* to self-destruct,
starve, or be torn apart by wolves.
From direct personal experience, separating "how to run a group" from
"the topic" of the group improves at least the "topic" portion and those
who actually want to participate will follow wherever the "how" moves to.
I do appreciate this community, and "everyone's" declared desire to
maintain it's quality a great deal - so I've piped up to add weight to
the request for a respite from the details... I'll deal with the
noise... by skipping it. Adrian - a contributor.. apparently by leaving
(at least temporarily).
Roxanne
(Returning to stealth mode...)
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 this list is for General (and mostly technical discussions) further
discussions/emails concerning the CoC only distracts from the purpose of
this email list.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Roxanne Reid-Bennett <rox@tara-lu.com>
wrote:
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 list maintainers handle problems,
pgsql-general is where the community meets, and that is where such a
discussion
should take place.To a degree you have a very valid point - however wading through a
discussion over nuanced verbiage isn't of value to me (and at least a few
others). This discussion will not garner a visible opinion from the vast
majority of those who read this list, and most likely, the vast majority of
those on this list don't really care about the discussion at all other than
not wanting the Postgres *community* to self-destruct, starve, or be torn
apart by wolves.From direct personal experience, separating "how to run a group" from "the
topic" of the group improves at least the "topic" portion and those who
actually want to participate will follow wherever the "how" moves to.I do appreciate this community, and "everyone's" declared desire to
maintain it's quality a great deal - so I've piped up to add weight to the
request for a respite from the details... I'll deal with the noise... by
skipping it. Adrian - a contributor.. apparently by leaving (at least
temporarily).Roxanne
(Returning to stealth mode...)--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
