On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
> <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>>> In the examples at the bottom you refer to "full time contributors".
>>> AFAIK, almost *no* PostgreSQL company has two employees that work full
>>> time on contributing to PostgreSQL. They all do something else *as
>>> well* (which might well be postgresql related). I'm not sure even
>>> EnterpriseDB can claim to have that. I'm pretty sure you didn't
>>> actually mean it has to be someone working full time on direct
>>> contributions though - and in fact, I think it's a strength of our
>>> development team in general that large parts of them don't *just* hack
>>> on the code, but they actually work with the resulting product as
>>> well. So while I'm pretty sure I agree with what you actually mean, I
>>> think the wording needs some improvement.
>>
>> I think we had debated between using "major contributors" and "full-time contributors" as someone could employ
multiplemajor contributors but that could be happenstance, i.e. they are major PG contributors but they work on it
completelyon their own time.
>
> Yes.
>
>> I'm ok with changing it to "major contributors" because really, the bullet points at the bottom are examples, not
thecriteria by which sponsors will be measured by.
>
> Right, though I do wonder if there's a good way to phrase the real
> intent well - something like:
>
> a company which employs two major contributors to PostgreSQL allowing
> them a significant amount of time to contribute to PostgreSQL.
"an organization that employs two major contributors with permission to contribute to PostgreSQL"
I would like to add something with "on company time" or "as part of their organizational requirements" but that
sentencemay be enough in itself. The point is that the organization provides the major contributor(s) the time to do
so
Jonathan
