On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Previous emails from Tom seem to indicate that the mandate of -core is
> mostly to decide things like the timing of releases.
That's not all we do.
> If we gave that
> job to somebody else, would there be anything left for -core to do?
> If so, what? And on the flip side, it is precisely because of the
> lack of a clear statement on release timing from -core that we're
> having these discussions here on -hackers. Personally, I think that's
> better, since -core is a private list (why?) to which most of us don't
> have access, and I don't see any reason why decisions like this can't
> be made in public.
We try to do everything within the community whenever possible, which
is precisely why this discussion is happening here.
Other matters we deal with usually demand confidentiality which is why
-core is a closed list. That may include dealing with private
companies, or dealing with complaints or privacy issues raised by
people who do not wish to do so in public. Obviously I cannot go into
details, but some things just can't be handled on an open list.
We also very occasionally step in and make a decision if -hackers (or
another group) is deadlocked over an issue. For example, the whole
'change the name' debate.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
