All,
> > hidden), or as a page on the "actual" website. That gives it a much
> > stronger "confidence level" than just a page on a wiki, that anybody
> > can edit. (now, we know that we are fairly good at "policing" the
> > content on our wiki, but an outsider does not know that)
Did nobody read my suggestion that this should go in the Press Kit? That seems like the perfect location; it gives our
sponsorsexposure somewhere official, while not turning the release notes (or even other parts of the docs) into a
fundraisingbillboard. The Press Kit is all about PR, and this is PR.
In fact, it makes sense to do it in 2 stages:
(1) assemble a wiki page, starting now, and
(2) when we complete the 9.1 Press Kit, copy the wiki page to a page of the press kit.
But, here's the important question: who is going to take responsibility for this? If we don't have a volunteer who is
goingto be in charge of making a sincere effort to list all feature sponsors, then any further discussion is pointless.
> Well, I imagine this could get pretty complex. For example, I assume
> Tom's commits would show Red Hat, and 2nd Quadrants show 2nd Quadrant,
> and there are some features that have multiple people associated with
> the feature.
Let's please not turn this into a white elephant[1]. We have enough elephants around as it is.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
San Francisco
([1] for non-English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant)
