Re: EDB taking over? - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 09:32 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 July 2009 21:38:06 Simon Riggs wrote:
> > We should either
> > i) remove it
> > ii) auction/openly charge for the advertising space
> > iii) have a credits or sponsors list
>
> While I have occasionally spoken up about this, I'm not sure how to formulate
> a fair set of rules that can apply to everyone.

The main thing for me is that we should have an objective and
transparent process by which these things are decided. We guard the code
with one or two levels of review; we don't need or want too strict a set
of rules, but we do have judges. In the case under discussion there
seems to have been no public discussion on whether an installer would be
issued by PostgreSQL project for this release and there is a clear
conflict of interest for those people responsible.

Let me be very clear that I hold Dave in the highest esteem and make no
personal accusation here. Indeed, I feel we should protect people from
accusations of conflict of interest by removing that possibility.

> The page in question is this: <http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux>.  We
> do promote an Ubuntu package there, for example.  And even though Ubuntu
> installers are not typically graphical, I don't think anyone would really
> notice or complain if these packages printed out a notice, "Ubuntu packages
> made by Canonical".
>
> And then how is this different from "One-Click Installer made by
> EnterpriseDB"?

I think the page in question is
http://www.postgresql.org/download/windows

There is *no* PostgreSQL.org installer for Windows in 8.4, just a link
to an external company's web site.

That is not acceptable, in a project where many volunteers have just
spent much time telling people this across the globe:
"Q: What's the relationship between the PostgreSQL Project,
EnterpriseDB, PostgreSQL Inc., CommandPrompt, SRA, Greenplum, Sun
Microsystems and others?
A: The PostgreSQL project enjoys the support of multiple companies who
sell products or services built with PostgreSQL, and in turn contribute
code, money and staff time to the project. None of them "own"
PostgreSQL, nor is any individual company responsible for PostgreSQL
code development. This is the same as Linux, Apache or FreeBSD."

It clearly isn't the same as Linux, Apache or FreeBSD. None of those
projects supply only a single installer, downloaded from an external
company's pages.

Would anybody think it acceptable if the training link on the home page
of postgresql.org went straight to 2ndQuadrant.com? (etc). What if I
gave away course material for a few, but not all of our courses? (They
take a long time to write, after all).

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support