On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
<jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> In the examples at the bottom you refer to "full time contributors".
>> AFAIK, almost *no* PostgreSQL company has two employees that work full
>> time on contributing to PostgreSQL. They all do something else *as
>> well* (which might well be postgresql related). I'm not sure even
>> EnterpriseDB can claim to have that. I'm pretty sure you didn't
>> actually mean it has to be someone working full time on direct
>> contributions though - and in fact, I think it's a strength of our
>> development team in general that large parts of them don't *just* hack
>> on the code, but they actually work with the resulting product as
>> well. So while I'm pretty sure I agree with what you actually mean, I
>> think the wording needs some improvement.
>
> I think we had debated between using "major contributors" and "full-time contributors" as someone could employ
multiplemajor contributors but that could be happenstance, i.e. they are major PG contributors but they work on it
completelyon their own time.
Yes.
> I'm ok with changing it to "major contributors" because really, the bullet points at the bottom are examples, not the
criteriaby which sponsors will be measured by.
Right, though I do wonder if there's a good way to phrase the real
intent well - something like:
a company which employs two major contributors to PostgreSQL allowing
them a significant amount of time to contribute to PostgreSQL.
Only better :-)
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
