On Friday 14 September 2007 11:00, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Andy, Ron, Peter, etc.:
> > > Josh, we simply need to decide if we want to do it or not. Lots of
> > > people have volunteered to help (including us), and the implementation
> > > project plan can be a team effort of those people.
> >
> > Ok, that didn't come out right.
> >
> > To restate:
> >
> > The next step of this process is NOT a poll. The next step of "should we
> > do it or not" is a rough draft of a plan which shows all of the "costs"
> > of changing the name and how we're going to meet them, as well as the
> > Pros and Cons of changing vs. not changing.
> >
> > There is no point in even talking further about changing the name of the
> > project if we don't have the resources to do the change. There's
> > particularly no point in doing a survey of people's uninformed opinions
> > about the issue; community members need to see a cost-benefit analysis
> > *first,* not after a vote.
> >
> > In other words, before we take a vote on whether the bike shed should be
> > red, we should first check to see if we can afford red paint.
> >
> > Such a proposal should also include other options like Ron Mayer's very
> > sensible 20-minute solution (e.g. "Postgres and Postgre are acceptable
> > alternate names").
>
> OK, looks like we now have a list of items to address _if_ we change the
> name:
>
> http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/Postgres
>
> I believe the next step we discussed was to get feedback from the
> 'general' email list. Correct?
I'd say no. Someone should talk to the packagers to asses viability, and
someone should review domain names, to asses viability. If those seem viable,
then open it up. If not, people need to know before they decide.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
