On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 15:53, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > Well that's confrontational...
>
> Well, personally I would have thought it would be obvious why we wouldn't
> want corporate supporters participating on this list, but you demanded to
> know.
>
This is a joke. If you invite all the people on this list to join that
list, you haven't actually prevented the "fragile corporate types" from
interacting with the "grotty techno-luddites" which claim to be so
important.
As a side note, I'm more than happy to have anyone join this list, it's
one of the reasons I lobbied so hard for us to open it up so many moons
ago.
> > 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?
>
> Integration requirements, yes. Functional requirements, no. The
> functional requirements should be defined by the people who are actually
> going to develop and/or fund the software.
>
I see where I went wrong, I thought integrating it into the main website
infrastructure was a functional requirement.
> > To do otherwise would seem to add
> > an a priori condition that we're going to use geviks kb project as our
> > solution before we even have the requirements.
>
> Per my previous e-mail, that's undecided. Please read it again and stop
> jumping to conclusions.
>
Clearly I should have understood that if you are leading a discussion
with developers and nebulous sponsors to implement a large website of
postgresql related materials on a third party projects mailing list that
that would be an indication of your openness to everyones ideas on a
software implementation for the postgresql community and would in no way
color the final decisions on the direction things should take. I
apologize for my confusion.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
