Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >>We don't want core to steer development anymore than we want a
> >>centralized group to do that, because if we did, the next company
> >>that comes along and wants to enhance PostgreSQL or offer technical
> >>support services will feel they have to get approval/buy-in from
> >>the _in_ group, and that isn't a productive setup. The fact that
> >>new companies getting involved can't find a central authority is a
> >>_good_ thing, if you think about it. It means that we have succeeded
> >>in building a community that allows people to join and feel a part
> >>right away, and they don't have to buy-in or play politics to do it.
> >
> >
> > 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?
>
> PostgreSQL is more of Democratic Republic than an actual democracy but
> they do very well at it.
>
> Any person can bring a patch and submit it, any person in the community
> can argue for it and any person can take the time to fix it to the
> specifications that core sets forth.
True, but I don't think "core" sets the specifications. Rather, it is
the community that sets them, or agrees to them by not saying anything.
--
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
