Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Ah, yes, this is certainly something we always want to avoid ---
> > having
> > one company be so closely associated with Postgres that people think
> > the
> > company owns it and therefore controls it.
> >
> > Is that a problem now? What things can the community or companies do
> > to avoid that?
>
> I think you, as a Core member, should answer that question, not me.
My core status isn't relevant, I think.
> > We could scale back contributions, but I am afraid that will hurt more
> > than help.
>
> I notice you said "we" when you meant "EnterpriseDB". This list is about
> PostgreSQL advocacy, not the companies we belong to...
Oh, you got me. I am going back to hiding in my Death Star now. ;-)
Seriously, I mean "we" as in "we (the community) require all
contributions to be anonymous", which is what you suggested. I did not
mean EnterpriseDB.
I could try to get EnterpriseDB to scale back their contributions, as
you suggested, but I am not sure I would be successful, and I am not
sure that is what the community wants (nor do I believe it would be in
the community's best interest). I could resign from EnterpriseDB (I do
have control over that), and that would cut their contribution level, at
least temporarily.
(The idea of Denis as Darth Vader really has humor potential.)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
