Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Time to scale up? - Mailing list pgsql-www

I think there are some very good points in this, and in this thread in
general. Atleast worth a few thoughts.

First about the different domains. Yes, it is very much like different
brands. And what is good or bad in it? Well, those projects that are not
under the PostgreSQL umbrella, are not that official, and not consider
part of the "package". But, on the other hand, it could be beneficial
for the main project, if the "package" would contain things like
PgAdmin, Slony etc. I believe, that it would make the total package more
"valuable" in business terms.

But, if those parts would be in the same package, then that would mean
more responsibility for the core. Someone would need to say that this is
beta, and this is ready. But that would be important for the users, so
it could be worth it. How it would be done, that would require some
talks between all those projects. But I can see, that the current core
could focus on the database itself, and then there could be another
organ that would look at all the joining parts.

When those projects are clearly separate, it also means that there are a
lot of brands. And if we want to promote all these projects, it will
require additional effort. So, instead of making one strong brand, we
kind of try to make one brand, and then we try to promote also many
other brands that are necessary for the one brand. No focus.

 From the advocacy perspective I see joining projects under a common
umbrella as a very good idea. Of course, those other projects should
also see it beneficial, and it would probably require a lot of work to
make these projects more connected. But I am quite sure, that it would
at least make the advocacy part a lot easier. There would be more to
talk about, and the links would not be pointed out to third party websites.

Rgs,

Jussi


Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Well that is a very good point, because I have always considered
>>> planetpostgresql not a part of the PostgreSQL project. I hadn't even
>>> considered that it is a postgresql project until just now.
>>
>> Just curious, but why does it have to be *.postgresql.org to be
>> considered official?  Isn't official what we make it ... ?
>
> Absolutely not (unfortunately). Official is what people "perceive" is
> official.
>
> For a case and point, go to http://www.ximian.com or
> http://www.suse.com . You will note that they no longer exist and have
> been absorbed into Novell.com.
>
> The reason for this is to show an official integration, so that people
> are comfortable with the respective brands because they are
> comfortable with Novell.
>
> The same applies for our sub projects, until they are recognized under
> the official project domain name. They will always be considered third
> party.
>
>> The thing is, everyone spends their time putting pgFoundry down as
>> being 'second class' ... of course everyone else is going to consider
>> it such also ... it isn't second class, nor was it ever meant to be
>> ... if ppl promoted, pushed and advertised it more, it would be as
>> 'second class' as common to go to as CPAN is for Perl ...
>
> Perhaps the fact that everyone is putting down pgFoundry as second
> class is telling to the point that we need to promote it's perception?
> E.g; get it under projects.postgresql.org where it really belongs.
>
> And as Alvaro mentioned, the same should go for planet.postgresql.org .
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>