Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement
От | Rob Butler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20050430125439.58926.qmail@web54005.mail.yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement
(Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I read the hackers list all the time, and have for years, and my company sponsors PG events every few months, and I would consider myself fairly "plugged in" to PG, and this is the first I have seen/heard of the PostgreSQL Foundation http://thepostgresqlfoundation.org/ Perhaps a little more promotion of it's existance, and a link from the PG home page would help out. Firebird has done a great job with their foundation, and there are two prominent links to it from their home page. Also, while PG foundation website states "The PostgreSQL Foundation does not in any way control the development of the PostgreSQL project" maybe it should to some extent. The PG Core dev group should be honorary top level members, and continue working as they always have. But the PG foundation is their official contact point. I don't see Tom's or Bruce's names in the PG foundation member list, which is odd and disturbing. One of the problems I feel the PG project has suffered from over the years is a lack of centralization. This made coming to PG difficult for new users, because they would have to go all over the place for info on different aspects of PG, and nothing looked consistent. You guys have made huge steps forward in the last year or two in pulling things together, but there is still room for improvement. Take a look at firebird. They provide a pretty consistent centralized resource for everything from the main DB engine, to the JDBC driver, to their foundation. Now granted, they had a lot easier job to create a centralized resource because they offer so much less, and much of it was created after the foundation was created. It's always easier to not let the genie out of the bottle than try to put it back in. Basically, the PG foundation is a good thing, and the core hackers should be more involved and represented in it. The foundation should also be made more prominent and the primary contact point for companies looking to contribute in any way to PG. I think if you did this, there would be more company involvment, more end user small $$ contributions that could be pooled to go towards development, and less risk of companies developing features without contacting PG first. Later Rob --- Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Nicolai Petri (lists) wrote: > > > We also use PostgreSQL as our primary db so it > would be more than likely > > that we would donate money for something similar > with postgresql if > > either : > > a) we can direct the money at one or more > specific tasks > > or > > b) the tasks founded will be related to core > postgresql features e.g. > > generel performance or other benefits that > fits all. > > > > The problem is organization. Who decides who gets > what money? What about > features that are paid for and worked on and not > accepted into the > community codebase? This was something I hoped the > PostgreSQL Foundation > http://thepostgresqlfoundation.org/ would step in > and do, but we seem much > more focused on advocacy efforts rather than > developemnt ones. > > Kris Jurka > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please > send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to > majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list > cleanly > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Предыдущее
От: Neil ConwayДата:
Сообщение: Re: [proposal] protocol extension to support loadable stream