Jan,
> There have been a good number of examples where the one who raised an
> issue isn't just of the format to implement it. So someone else jumped
> in and did it instead. I don't need to pick any particular samples, you
> know that it happened a few times.
Sure. But in those cases, the fix/feature was something that the consensus on
-Hackers agreed needed to be done, someday. Putting those items on the TODO
was an acknowledgement of that decision, even though they won't be
implemented until we aquire more contributors. As an example, the various
PL/pgSQL enhancements which Patrick and I pushed onto the TODO list, which
are still features in search of a programmer.
That took, as I recall, about a month of lobbying on this list, which
required me to prove a) how our current PL/pgSQL was weak, and b) how the
improvements would benefit the project overall, and c) how many people were
interested in the improvements.
There are 3 problems with Dann's proposal that have caused it to be shot down
in flames instead of being put on the TODO list:
1) Most people on this list ... particularly, most contributors ... do not
agree with Dann's proposal. This is in no little part due to Dann's lack of
material evidence for his case.
2) Dann has a particularly abrasive and insulting communication style that
hasn't helped his case any, either.
3) Dann is proposing not just a feature but sweeping changes to the way our
commmunity works, despite having been a member of this community for about 3
weeks total.
As such, this discussion is an example of the "Open Source Process" (tm)
working correctly. Someone brought up a proposal, it was challenged, they
were not able to defend the proposal, and it was voted down.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
