MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190110171835.GP2528@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <3281.1547142423@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+OCxoxsEC78bJrkgWObfx7jDTZ_DPi7TucEZSmS4hXbZOYDTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190111.100804.2220477848676088079.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
 <20190111163805.GT2528@tamriel.snowman.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190111163805.GT2528@tamriel.snowman.net>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 11:43:09 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CA+Tgmob5kkQBsUae1vEWxTn-0eN4wdDA6c+dPnK9WnkjHSkQoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp>, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>,
 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Thoughts?  Specific votes in one of those directions would help me, at
> least, figure out what should be done today.

Well, you know, you could just undo the ban which you imposed
unilaterally and which nobody so far has said they liked, and multiple
people have said they disliked.  Then after having the public
discussion about what the policy should be, you could implement the
conclusions of that discussion.

I mean, personally, I have no problem with SOME cross-posting
restrictions, but nothing you've proposed so far seems very good,
other than maybe the >2 rule.  But if you're looking to understand
what people want better, you don't really need more votes.  What has
been said by a whole bunch of people is not in any significant way
unclear.  They don't like the restrictions, and they do like being
consulted.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company