-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Ron Peterson <ron.peterson@yellowbank.com> wrote:
>> 100% no. A clear consensus, yes.
> As I see it, there are less than ten or so people vocally against the
> official name change and considerably more for it. Of those against
> it, two have a business-related financial stake in the name change.
> Truly, is it the PostgreSQL community these individuals are looking
> out for, or their own businesses?
There is not once person on this list arguing one way or the other that
doesn't have "some" stake in the name. The business has nothing to do
with this. If I felt the "name" would hurt or help me, I certainly
wouldnt' be using the name "Command Prompt" for a "Database" company.
>
> Frankly, the only substantial community claim I've seen against the
> name change is from several members of the JPUG.
>
Are we forgetting the french and italians?
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG+9h2ATb/zqfZUUQRAgUZAKCTGuwGtw0akMOcHivi6UqHb6DTMQCcCSuJ
cbaO9ndNNQ+yDTLTXvwSMm0=
=9yZr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
