> We as developers do not need mission statements, per se' but it is
often useful
> as something to point to.
It's comforting and useful to point to; in addition, developers
work on something because of personal "itches" (to coin a phrase)that happen to broadly overlap with the group
> IMHO, if we can come up with a strong, positive statement, it would
help MBA
> trained CIOs and CTOs choose PostgreSQL. To them, it will show a
professional
> minded development group, it will be recognizable to them.
I think this is an excellent point, especially since I'd say that one of
the
implicit goals of the PG project is for the database to be *used* ;)
- and the corporate world in some form or another represents probably
the
largest user base.
This reasoning is a bit dicey b/c playing PR games really isn't fun
after
the initial rush, and I don't think anyone really wants catering to the
corporate world to be first and foremost in their minds.
To this end, if a mission statement is adopted, it should probably be
a very dynamic document that remains capable of both engaging CIOs/CTOs
and intriguing developers as the vision and the landscape change.
A mission statement that is agonized over (and takes time away from
development),
finally adopted, and then allowed to become obsolete does PG no good.
Should you guys hold a vote to see who wants a mission statement (and
who
wants to write one or compile all the suggestions here into a nice form)
and then work from there? I'm not exactly familiar with the procedures
here.
thanks for listening to my rambling,
Michael Locasto
