-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Joshua D. Drake replied:
>> Anyone who is interested in advocacy or has something to say about it
>> should be on the list. This is the place for that.
> To second the above. If the people can't be bothered to subscribe to the
> list and participate, I am not really interested in their opinion.
How will people know about this list? How will they know that there are
actually potentially important decisions being discussed on the list?
Perhaps by drilling down to
http://www.postgresql.org/community/lists/
and then reading this?:
pgsql-advocacy PostgreSQL vs. the rest. Promotional ideas, etc.
All I'm suggesting is that we can do better than that: let's advocate
for the advocacy list a little bit. I also see no reason not to discuss
this on pg-general, as advocacy has traditionally been about promoting
Postgres. How the community decides to spend the money is a different
beast altogether, and the community is far better represented by
pg-general than the small group on advocacy.
Adrian Klaver writes:
> The issue of consensus from the Postgres community. At one time I recall a
> number of 21,000 for subscribers to pgsql-general. By the time a consensus
> was reached on a issue the issue would be moot or the money would have turned
> to dust.
And other people are complaining about the lack of feedback and discussion! :)
Can't have it both ways. This is not a vote: it's up to the Liason to act
or not act based on feedback they get from the community. I'd rather have a
discussion involving as much of the community as possible.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200610302147
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFFRrljvJuQZxSWSsgRAjKiAKCycbOtzwuquOqW7buExe1vdt0lXwCeJZql
gb/6WNqXR1p5Wktaw+XEX+o=
=+vFi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
