Re: PostgreSQL derivatives - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 6:37 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I agree with that assessment. I don't think it's a desirable or
>> unchangeable outcome, which is why I initially refused to attend the
>> recent EnterpriseDB-sponsored developer meeting unless Greenplum people
>> were also invited. I would like to see people encourage their
>> participation. When the project allowed one company to sponsor the
>> meeting it made a huge error, especially when the project had no need
>> for the funding. It sent the wrong message and I noted that Truviso were
>> not represented either, on the day.
>
> Both Greenplum and Truvisio had people invited, and if you recall when
> organising the meeting I repeatedly asked everyone to point out if I'd
> missed anyone. My primary concern when inviting people was to invite
> the most highly active developers. Secondary to that, I made a point
> of inviting at least one senior person from each of the major
> PostgreSQL contributing companies, including both of those
> organisations. *No* companies were intentionally excluded, and I
> assure you that except where funding was concerned, the meeting was
> organised entirely with my core hat on.

I was certainly disappointed that we didn't have representation from
said companies there, but I don't see how the organizers can be blamed
for that (neither edb nor the community side of Dave).

I'd be even more concerned if these companies actually didn't come there
*because* it was sponsored by EDB. But unless someone from said
companies say that's why they weren't there, I'll refuse to think that's
why :-)

And for the record, I clearly recall Dave asking people to let him know
if anybody was forgotten from the list.

If the event had been named "enterprisedb developer meeting" or
something, I can agree it would be an issue. But it has clearly been
named "pgcon developer meeting" that is sponsored by EDB. I can't see
anything wrong in that.

And in the end, I don't see any reason for us to *turn down* sponsorship
unless it comes with restrictions attached - which AFAICS this one
certainly didn't.

> EDB paid for the lunch and the room, largely because when considering
> holding another community meeting in NJ (as you've previously
> attended), Denis and I figured that a much more open meeting would be
> more useful to everyone, so I set about to organise exactly that.
>
> If you wish to 'right the wrong' that you see, then next year 2nd
> Quadrant are more than welcome to pay for the food and conference
> room, and I will continue to organise the event. I really don't care
> who pays for the chairs and sandwiches.

+1 on not caring. Having the meeting was, IMHO, a very good thing. It
could just as well have been paid for by SPI or whatever (which might be
with money indirectly contributed from the same people - again, I don't
care). The real value was in *making it happen*, which Dave did. He may
have used other ppl in edb to make it happen, or he could use external
people. I don't care - it happened, and that was good :-)


>> What can
>> we do to actively encourage participation from all companies?

Yes, that is certainly a good question, but IMHO not related to the dev
meeting in itself.

//Magnus