Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> writes:
[ quoting Andrew Sullivan ]
>>> I disagree. I think what PostgreSQL really needs is a few companies
>>> who are willing to underwrite a developer or two a piece. Or, maybe
>>> more precisely, _several_ companies to do that. The only thing
>>> currently missing in the community, therefore, is the "several" part,
>>> IMO.
> There are some, but I still disagree. The biggest advantage of
> PostgreSQL in my opinion has always been that it's a community project
> and not driven by some commercial interests.
These are not mutually exclusive. Each developer has his own axe to
grind, without doubt; I don't think it matters much whether his goals
are set by personal or corporate priorities. The critical thing from
the perspective of the PostgreSQL project is that no one person or
company have an overriding influence on where the project goes. So
I'd think the situation Andrew suggests, where several companies each
contribute a small part of the total effort, would be ideal. What we
need to guard against is a situation where one company controls a large
share of the development effort and can thereby dictate choices that
might be in their best interest but not be in the best interest of the
project as a whole.
(And how do we decide what's the best interest of the project as a
whole, anyway? Well, community consensus is the only way that I can
see. Again, the critical factor is that no one voice drown out the
rest.)
The core committee has spent a fair amount of time worrying about
exactly this issue, as first Great Bridge and later Red Hat threatened
to become the 800-pound gorilla. As a former employee of the former
and a current employee of the latter, I may not be the most unbiased
observer available to comment on the issue --- but I can tell you that
it's something I do think about.
regards, tom lane
