> > No, for two reasons: (1) the KB project includes contacts for some
> > corporate supporters who aren't prepared for the "attitude" common from
> > some posters on this (and other) main postgresql mailing lists, and (2)
> > this list is too large and diffuse to make decisions quickly on a narrowly
> > defined project.
>
> Well that's confrontational...(and hand-wavy imho)
But in reality, true. Some of the people on the list for the KB probably
would flat out not participate because of some of the more colorful ways
we in the OSS community tend to communicate.
This is an important project and has some corporate level sponsors that
are as integrated as say CMD into the community. We should respect the
way they communicate as well.
> Let me put it this way, I have an interest in discussing how the kb will
> be integrated into the main websites, but not much interest in
> discussing how exactly its coded up. That said, it sounds like what you
> need to know first is how it will be integrated into the site, and that
> discussion should probably happen here first *before* you go about
> coding something up and have yourselves painted into a corner.
My suggestion to the other mailing list was to define scope and then
when we had done so bring it to the WWW list for inclusion/comments
etc...
> They can't read the archives? You can't bullet-point it for them?
Robert, think ties. Ties don't read archives, nor is it Josh's
responsibility to bullet-point it for them.
> Which is why I am confused. Should we discuss the requirements here
> *first*, and then those interested in coding them up can join the
> project and discuss the details there?
Well honestly I don't think so. The KB at least at this point has
requirements that are going to be set forth in a major way by the
corporate sponsors. I don't think people on the WWW list want to
particpate in that.
I can see however, once those requirements are set; discussion from WWW
on snags, pitfalls and what we have to do to get it accepted and
integrated into the main WWW sites.
> (Robert prepares to resign himself to joining yet another mailing list,
> since it looks like this decision has already been made)
Think of it this way; it should go away in the end :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Robert Treat
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
