Josh,
> I repeat because the Core policy in draft is wrong. If you want to
> update per the previous policy I will have zero objection:
As previously mentioned on -www, this is not a policy. It wasn't written
up anywhere, and not discussed among many of the people who would have to
implement it.
> That is how Robert Treat, the previous (with oversight of core) made
> the determination of who is presented for approval.
>
> I realize that everyone has an opinion on this but to ignore the
> significant contributions of others based on the fact that they have
> not contributed code, strikes me as an ugly, and saddening precedent.
The above is BS in several different ways, so I'm going to have to call you
out on it. You're attempting to set up a polarized "Core vs. Non-code
contributors" argument in order to create an artificial crisis around an
issue which there's no reason not to plan out and deploy gradually.
First off, Robert Treat did *not* do anything about non-code contributors,
as evidenced by the fact that there are exactly zero non-code contributors
in either section. (and don't bring up Devrim; packaging is code, as
you'd know if you edited RPMs).
Second off, the proposed core policy is an attempt to list *more* non-code
contributors than have ever been listed before. Your only issue of
substance is that we're not moving *fast enough* for you. Shouldn't you
be busy with other things, like PostgreSQL East?
Well, not everything has to be a crisis. Some things we can plan out, and
deploy one change at a time.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
