On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:32:55 +0200
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> >> Marko Kreen wrote:
> >>> Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
> >>> whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
> >>> my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have
> >>> their own opinion.
> >
> >> Right. I can see your point, but it's my understanding that
> >> -hackers is really the ones supposed to decide on this.
> >
> > It would ultimately have been core's decision, but the discussion
> > should have happened on -hackers. There was no reason for it to be
> > private.
>
> Hmm. I thought that -core doesn't decide on things like these, they
> just "vote" on -hackers and have no special powers (other than being
> very respected community members that we all listen to, of course).
That was my understanding as well.
I quote from Tom Lane on August 30th of this year:
I think you're overstating the amount of power the core committee has.
Core sets release schedules, but beyond that has no more power than any
other committer. The pool of committers is quite a bit bigger than core.
In practice, of course, core has quite a lot of political power because
folk are often willing to follow our lead. But we'd lose that real
quick if we tried to lead in the wrong direction.
Source:
http://people.planetpostgresql.org/xzilla/index.php?/archives/317-PostgreSQL-is-Not-a-Democracy.html
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
