> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:33 PM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development; PostgreSQL advocacy
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] Increased company involvement
>
> [...]
> PostgreSQL is more of Democratic Republic than an actual
> democracy but they do very well at it.
I buy that. It is probably a fairly accurate description of
the Postgres community. Everyone has a voice, but ultimately,
the "Senate" (i.e.: patch approvers) passes the laws. Where
it differs is that the Senate is not necessarily democratically
elected. ;)
> Any person can bring a patch and submit it, any person in the
> community can argue for it and any person can take the time to
> fix it to the specifications that core sets forth.
Which brings up an important point. The core developers define
the structure in which change can occur. If people think that
Postgres should move in a direction that affects that framework,
they have to convince core to redefine that specification. It's
like writing new laws vs. amending the Constitution. Even though
anyone can draft a bill and submit it to their representative,
it's ultimately Congress that makes the laws. And while public
opinion can ultimately affect the actions of Congress, it is
still a sovereign body. As Bruce himself said, companies that
wish to contribute must not assume that their work will be
integrated into Postgres. The official stance is that there
only needs to be community buy-in, but it seems more realistic
that there needs to be core buy-in as well, at the least because
of the influence that core thinking has on the community itself.
That's not a bad thing per se, but it's definitely something that
contributors should consider.
__
David B. Held
Software Engineer/Array Services Group
200 14th Ave. East, Sartell, MN 56377
320.534.3637 320.253.7800 800.752.8129
