Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> One idea would be to list the core members at the top in one sentence,
>> and have their details below. But maybe core-at-the-top is the best of
>> our possible options.
>
> My impression is that core (in general) is a little sensitive about
> their position on that page. I didn't care enough to make the argument
> one way or another because I know that core is subject to the community.
>
> However, your point is also valid in that the current representation
> makes it look like core is somehow the key to the kingdom, which is
> certainly not true.
>
> I do not wish to detract from the importance of core either though. Part
> of me thinks the page should look like this:
>
> Core (link to page with core members)
I don't like the split-into-a-bunch-of-tiny-pages idea. The page isn't
large enough to require that yet, IMHO. And there's space for definition
as well, as long as it's nice and short (which it should be).
> * Definition of core, purpose etc....
+1 on actually defining that so outsiders can know about it. You'll just
have to get -core to agree on a wording for it though :-P
//Magnus
