Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 12:41 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> >> I think this should be a closed list run by the Linux Foundation.
> >
> > Why's that? I'm willing to put up a list we can use for discussion.
>
> That's also fine. I just mean "not an @postgresql.org list".
Which still doesn't explain why you don't want it on postgresql.org.
> I'm just saying that asking the EDB staff to endorse a certification
> which competes with EDB's certification is not something I personally
> would do.
Since, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're not with EDB I wonder how
you come to this conclusion. I had a different feedback when talking to some
directly.
> > Ok, thanks. BTW we're not talking questions here, but tasks to be
> > performed.
> Oh, does LF have the ability to administer that kind of test? That
> would be awesome.
Yes, they do.
> >> However, the first question we should have with this is "what problem
> >> are we solving?"
> >>
> >> That is, are the EnterpriseDB/SRA/etc. certifications not good enough?
> >
> > At the very least they are not vendor neutral.
> >
> >> to make money off PostgreSQL. If there is a deficiency, we need to make
> >> sure that an LF certification will address that specific deficiency.
> >
> > Again, by its very setup I think it solves the major problem.
>
> You haven't said what that problem is?
But I have, see above. Just to make it clear again, there is no certification
for PostgreSQL and PostgreSQL only with no company attached to it. It'd be
great to have something that independent from those commercial interests.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com
VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL
