>>We don't want core to steer development anymore than we want a
>>centralized group to do that, because if we did, the next company
>>that comes along and wants to enhance PostgreSQL or offer technical
>>support services will feel they have to get approval/buy-in from
>>the _in_ group, and that isn't a productive setup. The fact that
>>new companies getting involved can't find a central authority is a
>>_good_ thing, if you think about it. It means that we have succeeded
>>in building a community that allows people to join and feel a part
>>right away, and they don't have to buy-in or play politics to do it.
>
>
> Well, you make Postgres sound like a very democratic community, but
> I'm afraid this is a fairy tale. Aren't the people who approve
> patches exactly the in group that you claim doesn't exist?
PostgreSQL is more of Democratic Republic than an actual democracy but
they do very well at it.
Any person can bring a patch and submit it, any person in the community
can argue for it and any person can take the time to fix it to the
specifications that core sets forth.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Command Prompt,Inc.
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
