Dave Held wrote:
> Well, you make Postgres sound like a very democratic community, but
> I'm afraid this is a fairy tale. Aren't the people who approve
> patches exactly the in group that you claim doesn't exist? Aren't
> they the people that you need buy-in from to really contribute to
> Postgres? The reason I make this point is because I know what a
> democratic development community really looks like, and the Boost
> community is one such example. That truly *is* democratic, because
> decisions are made as a group, and no fixed subset of members has
> an overriding veto. The group has moderators, but they exist only
> to moderate discussion on the mailing lists. I'm not saying that
> it is bad that Postgres is not democratic. Postgres is a totally
> different kind of beast than Boost, and probably benefits from
> having a few people ultimately decide its fate. But let's call a
> spade a spade and not pretend that contributors don't have to get
> buy-in from core.
Really? You have a different perspective than I see. I have seen
patches be accepted that had no core buy-in. We accept patches based on
group feedback, not some closed approval process.
--
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
