On Friday 03 September 2004 12:01, Chris Browne wrote:
> xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (Robert Treat) writes:
> > I don't understand why people are not happy with just saying "it is
> > the work of hundreds of developers" or some such paraphrase? Why do
> > we need to be more specific about the structure of the postgresql
> > development community?
>
> In the "long form" version, it provides some reassurance that:
>
> a) It's not some tiny clique vulnerable to the vagaries of one
> organization's business risks;
>
> b) It's not _controlled_ by one organization, either;
>
> c) It is also not some sort of anarchy that lets just anyone check in
> their favorite security holes.
>
> For the pointy-haired types to whom "risk assessment" is everything,
> these _are_ points of some importance.
None of the other more cumbersome wording have addressed those points well,
and the standard "hundreds of developers" certainly does a good job of #1,
does a better job of #3 than suggested phrasing like "1242 developers". And
#2 is addressed elsewhere within the release by mentioning several different
companies who contributed and in the explination at the bottom of who the
PGDG is. In fact that bit at the bottom is really where all 3 should be
addressed, not in the first paragraph.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
