Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Time to scale up? - Mailing list pgsql-www

You mean like PgFoundry?

On Jul 24, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Derek M. Rodner wrote:

> Newbie alert....
>
> What if we tried to merge ALL of the different Postgres auxiliary
> projects into a forge site like sugarforge.org?
>
> For those of us that are "new", it seems illogical for projects to
> be scattered all over the place...  I am not implying that they
> should be part of the physical Postgres package, but co-location of
> all of these tools makes them more accessible and gives "one-stop
> shopping" for those who are Postgres users....
>
> If we could get the resources to create a repository like
> SugarForge it would also have many indirect benefits:
> 1.  A single repository for everyone to go consolidates many varied
> projects and might reduce redundancy
> 2.  Let's outsiders see just how big the Postgres community really is
> 3.  Might entice others to get involved
> 4.  Raises the Postgres profile in the market
> 5.  Gives a more "professional" face to Postgres which it needs to
> jump to the next level
>
> Now, I understand the efforts involved in this, but I wanted to at
> least plant the seed.
>
> Derek
>
>
> Derek M. Rodner
> Director, Marketing
> EnterpriseDB Corporation
> 33 Wood Avenue, Second Floor
> Iselin, NJ  08830
> 732.331.1333
>
>
>
>
> Jussi Mikkola wrote:
>> I think there are some very good points in this, and in this
>> thread in general. Atleast worth a few thoughts.
>>
>> First about the different domains. Yes, it is very much like
>> different brands. And what is good or bad in it? Well, those
>> projects that are not under the PostgreSQL umbrella, are not that
>> official, and not consider part of the "package". But, on the
>> other hand, it could be beneficial for the main project, if the
>> "package" would contain things like PgAdmin, Slony etc. I believe,
>> that it would make the total package more "valuable" in business
>> terms.
>>
>> But, if those parts would be in the same package, then that would
>> mean more responsibility for the core. Someone would need to say
>> that this is beta, and this is ready. But that would be important
>> for the users, so it could be worth it. How it would be done, that
>> would require some talks between all those projects. But I can
>> see, that the current core could focus on the database itself, and
>> then there could be another organ that would look at all the
>> joining parts.
>>
>> When those projects are clearly separate, it also means that there
>> are a lot of brands. And if we want to promote all these projects,
>> it will require additional effort. So, instead of making one
>> strong brand, we kind of try to make one brand, and then we try to
>> promote also many other brands that are necessary for the one
>> brand. No focus.
>>
>> From the advocacy perspective I see joining projects under a
>> common umbrella as a very good idea. Of course, those other
>> projects should also see it beneficial, and it would probably
>> require a lot of work to make these projects more connected. But I
>> am quite sure, that it would at least make the advocacy part a lot
>> easier. There would be more to talk about, and the links would not
>> be pointed out to third party websites.
>>
>> Rgs,
>>
>> Jussi
>>
>>
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well that is a very good point, because I have always
>>>>> considered planetpostgresql not a part of the PostgreSQL
>>>>> project. I hadn't even considered that it is a postgresql
>>>>> project until just now.
>>>>
>>>> Just curious, but why does it have to be *.postgresql.org to be
>>>> considered official?  Isn't official what we make it ... ?
>>>
>>> Absolutely not (unfortunately). Official is what people
>>> "perceive" is official.
>>>
>>> For a case and point, go to http://www.ximian.com or http://
>>> www.suse.com . You will note that they no longer exist and have
>>> been absorbed into Novell.com.
>>>
>>> The reason for this is to show an official integration, so that
>>> people are comfortable with the respective brands because they
>>> are comfortable with Novell.
>>>
>>> The same applies for our sub projects, until they are recognized
>>> under the official project domain name. They will always be
>>> considered third party.
>>>
>>>> The thing is, everyone spends their time putting pgFoundry down
>>>> as being 'second class' ... of course everyone else is going to
>>>> consider it such also ... it isn't second class, nor was it ever
>>>> meant to be ... if ppl promoted, pushed and advertised it more,
>>>> it would be as 'second class' as common to go to as CPAN is for
>>>> Perl ...
>>>
>>> Perhaps the fact that everyone is putting down pgFoundry as
>>> second class is telling to the point that we need to promote it's
>>> perception? E.g; get it under projects.postgresql.org where it
>>> really belongs.
>>>
>>> And as Alvaro mentioned, the same should go for
>>> planet.postgresql.org .
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Joshua D. Drake
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of
>> broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster