On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-08-13 16:55:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
>> > I think that it's useful for these things to be handled in an
>> > adversarial manner, in the same way that litigation is adversarial in
>> > a common law court. I doubt that Noah actually set out to demoralize
>> > anyone. He is just doing the job he was assigned.
>>
>> FWIW, I agree that Noah is just carrying out the RMT's task as
>> assigned.
>
> Well, then that's a sign that the tasks/process need to be rescoped.
Why? I might agree if the RMT had an outsized influence on final
outcome. If that's the case, then it's something that I missed.
I also don't think that it's fair to expect Noah to spend a lot of
time poring over whether sending out one of those pro forma status
update policy violation mails is warranted. I expect someone is his
position to aim to err on the side of sending out too many of those.
It's easy for the patch author to explain the situation, but hard for
the RMT to understand the situation fully at all times.
--
Peter Geoghegan