On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 15:37 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Just keep re-asking until you hear no objections. That will make it
> > fair. Make it seem as if there is the only one person with an objection,
> > when others have already agreed.
>
> Dude, other people objected on specific counts. That is, there were
> specific things they objected to, rather than the whole idea. Then,
> just like code, we do a "here it is with that specific thing fixed. Is
> it OK now?"
>
> I've got that *you* don't like the whole idea. I don't have that
> definitely from *anyone* else (except maybe Gavin, and I'm still not
> clear on what his response means), and quite a few people said they
> liked the idea -- in fact, the majority who have spoken up on this list.
From your response, I think you'll just keep trying to isolate my
opinion until it seems frantic and somehow strange. Calling me dude, or
asking me to chill, is a well-known gambit to make my views seem
emotional, rather than rational. What's the rush? Why so quick to
silence me?
I haven't objected to "the whole idea". Surveys are good, and I've
proposed a plan to deliver one, that has clear backing.
What is so important about this that it should be railroaded through at
the last minute? What was wrong with a community project? I've explained
a reason why we should wait a month; you've not explained why haste is
important. I've also explained how we can get multi-language results.
If we are interested in polling new PostgreSQL users, lets wait awhile
to let some join. If we are only interested in existing users, why do it
now, at release time? Haste now makes no sense.
Let's take time, do it right and do it for, and by, the PostgreSQL
community.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
