On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Richard Broersma
<richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I take it that the concern is not how reviews are funded, but over the
> perceived connection between the organic community and third party
> organizations. This makes sense.
I don't think that's it exactly. Basically, if you fund reviewers,
and we get lots more people doing reviews and they're all great, I'll
be happy. If you fund reviewers, and we get lots more people doing
reviews and they're all terrible, I'll be unhappy. And likewise if
you do or don't fund mentors. The results matter a lot, and none of
us know that for sure yet. I think all I (and others) are asking you
do is think about it carefully before you decide what to do; I at
least am not trying to push you down any particular path.
> So any person regardless of association or funding is free to approach to
> community for assistance.
I strongly agree with that statement. Of course, all such help is on
a best-effort, volunteer basis. If you need more than that, you can
try (a) begging, (b) T-shirts, or (c) money. What's not clear to me
is whether you do in fact need more than that, and which of (a)-(c) is
the best way to get it.
> In addition, third party organizations should
> maintain a healthy disconnection from the community.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
