Andrew, Bruce,
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:36:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > one). But, if we had a foundation, even in name only, they would think
> > the foundation controls PostgreSQL development and features. They just
> > _want_ to think someone is in central control, and having a foundation
> > just confuses the issue. They have to understand PostgreSQL is run by
>
> Thought I'd mention that I too have had this experience. It is
> especially difficult in the era of Linux, because people think of
> Linux as being controlled by him (and in some sense it is).
I'll concur with this issue; I can't count the number of times I've said
"PostgreSQL Inc., a private company not directly associated with the
PostgreSQL Global Development Group" when recommending Geoff and his crew.
Americans (and presumably others) are just not comfortable thinking about
anarchistic organizations (and no, that's not an oxymoron). They want an
Authority to be in charge. Sort of makes you sad for the state of political
consciousness ....
Anyway, regarding certification, I was more thinking that one-to-several of
the current PG support vendors would develop a curriculum, and then several
major contributors + core group members would review & approve it. I do
think we need a foundation (and will have one) but for fundraising only; it's
important that such a foundation have no authority over the program.
And I do think it's important that we don't end up with 4 competing
certifications each supported by only one vendor. That way lies madness.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
