Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

2007-08-30_19:25:56-0400 Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>:

> Can someone create pgsql-arguments and force the kinds of
> controversial discussions that play out on this list to move to there
> or something?

What would a non-controversial discussions be like?  2 + 2 = 4?
Changing the name is a big deal, a lot of people have an opinion about
it, and this is a venue to express them.  Nobody is being vicious or
anything.

Discussions like these drag out because there is no rational conclusion.
Some people like Postgres, some like PostgreSQL.  It's like trying to
decide the best color.  Being an apostate architect, I've been in a lot
of those discussions also, and they're much the same.  They go on and on
and on, there's rarely an argument that will appeal to everyone's sense
of reason, nevertheless there are a lot of strong opinions, which leads
to lots of chest thumping, etc.  But just because these kinds of
political discussions are frustrating and difficult doesn't mean they
don't need to happen.

Ultimately I think the folks with the most clout around here (read
'core'), certainly not me, just need to step in and resolve this one way
or the other.  They probably don't all agree either, but they could have
an internal vote or something, and the boundary of 'who gets to vote'
would make as much sense as any other option I can think of.

Would anybody be against a pronouncement from core as a way of ending
this endless thread?

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/