> What does it mean to "track" the status of something? How would the status
> change except by discussion? What would be the point of announcing the status
> of something without allowing people to comment?
No one said anything about not letting people comment or discuss. What I
am suggesting is a better public presentation of what the heck is going
on with PostgreSQL development.
>
> I think you have a severely flawed idea of how free software development
> proceeds.
Then you obviously aren't paying attention. Look at other major OSS
projects. They have these things in place. Even the Linux kernel has a
bugzilla (although I am not advocating bugzilla). Not to mention KDE,
Gnome, Debian..
These projects also have reasonably defined milestones for particular
releases and show status of those milestones during the release.
What you're describing sounds like something a manager of a
> commercial project would want. Perhaps it's something the managers of the
> people working on Postgres on behalf of some corporate sponsors might want but
> in those cases I doubt they would want the information to be public anyways.
What I am describing is what other large OSS projects already do.
> In the free software world there's no top-down management of the project with
> managers issuing direction and expecting feedback reports.
No but there are people in charge of particular tasks. There are people
only working on certain things. Like the work that the people did on PITR.
People only want
> tools that make their lives easier. Not tools that make other people's lives
> easier at the expense of their own convenience. The programmers are not
> beholden to any corporate interests (other than their own sponsors, who
> presumably are getting all the feedback they're looking for privately).
I am not suggesting that anybody be beholden to anybody accept maybe the
community itself.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
