Robert, Heikki,
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg01651.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg01983.php
>
> Josh's schedule was subsequently endorsed by Simon Riggs. So by my
> count we now have four votes for a 4-CF schedule and one for a 3-CF
> schedule (me), maybe two if you count Tom, who I think was leaning in
> that direction - so I guess that settles the matter?
I think there's a fairly clear consensus in favor of 4-CF. The reason
you've not heard from anyone else on the topic is that nobody is
objecting. So, at this point, we should go with it and someone (me,
Dave, Tom) should post a schedule somewhere.
> That implies that we need a release manager. Electing one would be the
> first step. That's a lot of work and responsibility, with lots of
> potential for making people cross, so in practice I think as soon as
> someone steps up to the plate and volunteers to do it, he's the one.
Having recently been immersed in the issues of the Perl 5 community, I'm
going to disagree and say that having a singular release manager would
be a bad idea. While an autocrat is a more rapid decision-maker, he or
she can also be a bottleneck ... and frequently is.
I do think that we (core) should show more leadership in enforcing the
deadlines that the hackers have already agreed on.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com
