On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:34:48AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 03:34:31PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Something that I would suggest is that those that are receiving
> > funding be transparent about it. It isn't essential of course, but to
> > do any less might lead to the perception of there being a conflict of
> > interests in some people's minds, which is best avoided.
> >
> > I am conscious of the fact that I've expressed lots of opinions on
> > this thread on our processes and so on, some of which, if followed
> > through on, would be quite large departures. I hope that they were
> > received as modest suggestions.
>
> I appreciate everything everyone said in this thread, and I can't think
> of an example off the top of my head where vendors adversely affected
> our process. I think the _big_ reason for that is that our community
> members have always acted with a "community first" attitude that has
> insulated us from many of the pressures vendors can place on the
> development process. I am sure that protection will continue --- I just
> wanted to point out that it is a necessary protection so we can all be
> proud of our released code and feature set, and continue working as a
> well-coordinated team.
Let me add one more thing. As someone who has been funded for Postgres
work since 2000, I am certainly "pro-funding"!
Since our community members have a "community first" attitude, it is the
community's responsibility to help them get funding. We have thrown
around a few ideas in this thread, but perhaps someone should start a
new email thread with first-hand suggestions of how we can help people
get funding. I am certainly ready to help however I can.
My reason for replying to this thread was to highlight our valuable
"community first" attitude.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
