Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 17:13, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:05:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I think we are going to see more company-funded developers working on
> > > PostgreSQL. There are a handful now, but I can see lots more coming.
> > > I am going to work on getting those funding companies more visibility.
> > > We originally were concerned that such involvement may harm the
> > > development process, but history has shown that it has only been a huge
> > > benefit for the community.
> >
> > I agree, and it's also true that while the visibility of all you
> > paid-to-hack types is high, the fact that you _are_ paid, and by wha
> > companies, is not.
> >
>
> At a minimum we could have people attach a company name to their
> developer bios (http://developer.postgresql.org/bios.php) if their
> company pays them to hack on postgresql. (at the developers discretion
> of course) At the least I would think companies like postgresql inc
> would benefit from publicity that "we employee X number of pg
> developers."
>
> We could also generate a list of companies sponsoring postgresql
> development, but we'd have to come up with some criterion as to what it
> means to be a sponsors. For example, a coworker and I were discussing a
> patch he is getting ready to submit this morning while we were "on the
> clock". While our company doesn't have an issue with this, I don't know
> that I would say they sponsor postgresql development, they just happen
> to employ two guys who are more involved than most and will hack code if
> it scratches our particular itch.
Yea, that is a tough one, but anyone who is submitting patches regularly
and does _some_ work on company time is eligible, I think.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
