Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

Actually, Stefan, that isn't a bad idea either (within reason).  The
most successful companies are those who listen, really listen, to their
customers.  Having an end-user board that has some oversight is actually
not a bad idea in any situation.

I would be interested to see if any other open source projects do it.
That way you don't go implementing Klingon as a supported language when
everyone is really developing in Wookie these days.

The reality, though, is that (with the exception of me, sort of) the
developers of PostgreSQL are actually the end users, so we sort of do it
anyway.

Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner [mailto:stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:11 PM
To: Derek Rodner
Cc: Brian Hurt; Magnus Hagander; Joshua D. Drake; Robert Bernier;
pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs
PostgreSQL)

Derek Rodner wrote:
> Brian,
>
>
>
> I respectfully disagree.  It can't just be the maintainers that make
the
> decision.  In reality, there should be a marketing board for Postgres
> and those folks should make the decision in coordination with all
> parties involved including those who would have to change doc, those
who
> would have to change code, etc.  I know advocacy was supposed to be
the
> marketing-like group, but it is too big of a group with too many
> opinions that don't matter, mine included.

imho this decision is one that -core has to take in the end
>
>
>
> What we should do (here comes my marketing speak) is talk to those who
> matter, USERS.  There is an old saying in marketing:  Your opinion,
> though interesting, is irrelevant.  The reality is that we are all on
> the "inside" and are too jaded.  If PostgreSQL were a company, we
would
> talk to analysts, customers, prospects, etc. and make a decision based
> on that.


First PostgreSQL is not a company it is a vital, large and successful
OSS project ...

Second the natural extension of that thought is that in the future we
will simply have users vote on what feature they want and have an "end
user board" that decides what features the developers have to implement
?

Stefan