Since it seems that core is rather mature and "loves" postgresql, not too
much concern is probably neccessary. Maybe "modify" the rules and say no
more than 50% can be in one company. Also, maybe inform GB and others of
the policy so they don't actively pursue core to make it an issue.
Other than that, just wait and see I guess.
Also... if you are concerned about the community seeing core as "founded" or
not, maybe on one of the postgresl sites, disclose where core works if it is
a "conflict" issue... but that is a bit of an privacy infringement I'd
think.
Either way... it seems like core has the backing of this list at least... if
the backing is universal... I say it would be upto core to decide what they
feel is safe.
Adam Lang
Systems Engineer
Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-general" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job
> "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com> writes:
> > I wasn't judging. I was mentioning to others what the concerns probably
> > were. Also, it isn't a concern of "Company B" taking over. It is of
the
> > possibility of development put in the direction that best benefits of
> > Company B as opposed to the project itself.
> > ...
> > It is merely a conflict of interest issue.
>
> Right, exactly. That was why we originally suggested putting a limit on
> the number of core members employed by any one company: to reduce both
> the actual and perceived potential for core decisions being taken in a
> way that is more for the benefit of some company than for the project as
> a whole.
>
> I am not sure that the *real* potential for bad choices is all that
> high. I think all the core members understand very well that we are
> stewards of a shared resource, and in the long run decisions counter
> to the community-wide best interest will also not be in the best
> interest of our companies. But it's also important that the rest of
> the PG community *perceive* that core decisions are well-founded.
>
> However, given recent events the original two-of-six idea isn't feasible
> any more --- and certainly none of us were going to tell Bruce that he
> couldn't take that job because that'd make three GB employees on core.
> So the question is, what do we do now?
>
> regards, tom lane
