Re: On what we want to support: travel?
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: On what we want to support: travel? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200611081052.32234.josh@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: On what we want to support: travel? (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: On what we want to support: infrastructure?
Re: On what we want to support: travel? |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
Robert, > On a side note, this discussion seems to be turning into a TPC vs. Speakers > debate, which is unfortunate, as there are certainly other items that > should be in a discussion of things to spend money on, like software > certifications and standards processes, which so far have pretty much been > ignored. Sorry, blame my choice of example. To refresh, here's the list of everything we might want to spend money on: 1. PostgreSQL.org infrastructure (servers, bandwidth, sysadmins, SSL, etc.) (unlikely to need money, but if it does, the highest priority) 2.a. Speaker travel to key conferences. 2.b. Membership and participation in standards and benchmark bodies. 2.c. Developer tools (hardware & software) 2.d. Performance/testing tools (mostly hardware & hosting) 2.e. Development of PostgreSQL code 2.f. Porting other OSS applications to PostgreSQL 2.g. Printing Marketing collateral for PostgreSQL (CDs, flyers, case studies) 2.h. Developing marketing collateral for PostgreSQL (hired writer) 2.i. Generally booth duty expenses for conferences (food, signs, internet, etc.) 3. Commercial booths/pavillions at large conferences (only if we have money coming out our ears) I *think* everyone is in agreement on (1) and (3). Where people are arguing is for 2.a-i, where people want to set some priorities. Personally, I don't think that we can set any meaningful priorities for categories of expenses in the abstract, which is why I'm pushing a "bang for the buck" evaluation. However, a couple of people have pointed out that we're still vague on what constitutes "bang". For example, what are our comparative criteria for: a) reaching potential new users at OSS conferences? b) reaching potential new users in South America, Africa and Asia? c) reaching "suits"? d) reaching governments? e) developing new PostgreSQL features? f) improving standards compliance and certifications? g) improving performance? h) adding to the number of PostgreSQL OSS user applications? If we have to compare, for example, sending David Fetter to a Venezualan conference sponsored by the government where he will speak to an audience of 300 people against offering a prize to Joomla developers who port add-ins to PostgreSQL, which "bang" is bigger? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: