Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>
>> In addition, all "advocacy" operations are rather statically
>> established and contain significant assumptions related to efficacy
>> that I certainly question, but obviously no one in the "core" group
>> does.
>>
>
> I have no idea what that sentence means. Care to explain it?
>
> A
>
>
Perhaps "all" was too encompassing. I refer here to the assumption,
based on anecdotal reporting, that postgresql participation in the 100
or so open source shows was efficacious, a necessary condition for
growth,the assumption that elephant pins help the cause, the assumption
that a CD of just the core database is helpful and necessary and
produces any results, and the assumption that increased features are
linked to increased use of the database. And the assumption that
donated monies should be used to pay travel expenses. The latter
doesn't fly very well in other groups such as ICANN and is considered by
some to be a form of corruption.
