Le Jeudi 20 Juin 2002 13:39, Karel Zak a écrit :
> IMHO there is not problem with organization -- I don't know what do
> you want to organize on actual number of developers / contributors
Dear Karel,
My previous e-mail points out several projects where, IMHO, a leadership would
benefit the community at large :
- replication,
- W32 port,
- marketing (read the post "Read this and puke").
> What is non-democratic now?
The current processes are based on discussion, and therefore are democratic.
My proposal does not intend to change discussion processes between
pgsql-hackers.
But, in order to face companies like MySQL AB, Oracle or Micro$oft, the
community needs to take important decisions that will help team work. A
clarified organization would help.
Please note I am not a PostgreSQL hacker myself, as I do not contribute code
to PostgreSQL main sources. But, as an outside spectator, I would only like
to point out that some efforts need coordination.
Debian is a very interesting example of Open-Source organization, as for all
aspects linked to "decision making". Usually, at Debian, when a discussion is
driven, a clear choice arizes after a limited time. Projects are sometimes
slow, but always reach their goals.
As for current PostgreSQL organization, can someone explain me which W32 port
will make its way to PostgreSQL main source code? Can someone publish a
schedule for replication availability? Who is in charge of explaining newbees
that MySQL InnoDB is just a marketing lie? What is the current PostgreSQL
market share?
In other words, we should ask ourselves the question of PostgreSQL future
organization. We come to point where PostgreSQL has equal chances to become
the #1 database or die like Betamax.
Best regards to you all,
Jean-Michel
