On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:42:06PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > Your colleagues achieve compliance despite uncertainty; for inspiration, I > > recommend examining Alvaro's status updates as examples of this. The policy > > currently governs your open items even if you disagree with it.
Thanks for resolving this open item. > I emphatically agree with that. If the RMT is to accomplish its > purpose, it must be able to exert authority even when an individual > contributor doesn't like the decisions it makes. > > On the other hand, nothing in the open item policy the current RMT has > adopted prohibits you from using judgement about when and how > vigorously to enforce that policy in any particular case, and I would > encourage you to do so. I understand. When it comes to open item regulation, the aspects that keep me up at night are completeness and fairness. Minimizing list traffic about non-compliant open items is third priority at best. Furthermore, it takes an expensive and subjective calculation to determine whether a policy-violating open item is progressing well. I will keep an eye out for minor policy violations that I can ignore cheaply and fairly. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
