Re: My new job - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

What is the main concern? That Great Bridge or PostgreSQL Inc will try to
influence development?  This is just my lowly opinion but it seems to me
that this could be a storm brewing in a tea cup, it just doesn't seem to be
that threatening a situation at a glance.

Congrats to everyone on their new positions. *hats off*

-Mitch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-general" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>;
"PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] My new job


> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
> >> Bridge.
>
> > Whatever happened to this:
>
> > From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> > : One thing we have agreed to is that there must not be an unseemly
fraction
> > : of core members working for the same company.  With six people on
core,
> > : probably about two working at the same company would be a reasonable
> > : limit.
>
> I knew someone was going to bring that up ;-).
>
> There's already been discussion of this point among core.  What we
> now have is three core members employed by Great Bridge and the
> other three either fully or partly employed by PostgreSQL Inc.
> In one sense that's a stable situation, but on the other hand it does
> not agree with our original informal goal of keeping any one company
> to a minority position of the core membership.
>
> None of the core members are interested in giving up their new
> positions.  En masse resignation from the core committee would preserve
> our high moral standards, perhaps, but it wouldn't do the project any
> good that I can see.  So it seems like the choices are to accept the
> status quo, or to appoint some more core committee members to bring
> the numbers back where we said they should be.
>
> While I can think of a number of well-qualified candidates for core
> membership, I don't much like the notion of appointing core members
> just to meet some kind of numerical quota.  Also, suppose we do appoint
> more members, and then some of them accept positions with GB or PgSQL
> Inc; do we repeat the exercise indefinitely?  (This is not an unlikely
> scenario, since the sort of people who'd be asked to join core are
> exactly the sort of people whom both companies would love to hire.)
>
> Bottom line is we're not sure what to do now.  Opinions from the
> floor, anyone?
>
> regards, tom lane
>