On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 1:13 AM Michael Meskes <mes...@postgresql.org> wrote: > I get it that the goal is to release PostgreSQL 14 and I also get it > that nobody is interested in the reasons for my slow reaction. I even, > at least to an extend, understand why nobody tried reaching out to me > directly.
That's simply not true. Andrew Dunstan reached out personally and got no response. He then reached out through a backchannel (a direct coworker of yours), before finally getting a single terse response from you here. Every one of us has a life outside of PostgreSQL. An individual contributor may not be available, even for weeks at a time. It happens. The RMT might well have been much more flexible if you engaged with us privately. There has not been a single iota of information for us to go on. That's why this happened. > However, what I cannot understand at all is the tone of this > email. Is this the new way of communication in the PostgreSQL project? The tone was formal and impersonal because it represented the position of the RMT as a whole (not me personally), and because it's a particularly serious matter for the RMT. It concerned the RMT exercising its authority to resolve open items directly, in this case by calling for a revert. This is the option of last resort for us, and it was important to clearly signal that we had reached that point. No other committer (certainly nobody on the RMT) knows anything about ecpg. How much longer were you expecting us to wait for a simple status update? -- Peter Geoghegan
