On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> (I note that the proposal to have the CFM review everything is merely
>> one way of meeting the need to have senior people spend more time
>> reviewing. But I assure all of you that I spend as much time
>> reviewing as I can find time for. If someone wants to pay me the same
>> salary I'm making now to do nothing but review patches, I'll think
>> about it. But even then, that would also mean that I wasn't spending
>> time writing patches of my own.)
>
> I have heard the idea of a "cross-company PostgreSQL foundation" of some
> sort that would hire a developer just to manage commitfests, do patch
> reviews, apply bugfixes, etc, without the obligations that come from
> individual companies' schedules for particular development roadmaps,
> customer support, and the like. Of course, only a senior person would
> be able to fill this role because it requires considerable experience.
>
> Probably this person should be allowed to work on their own patches if
> they so desire; otherwise there is a risk that experience dilutes.
> Also, no single company should dictate what this person's priorities
> are, other than general guidelines: general stability, submitted patches
> get attention, bugs get closed, releases get out, coffee gets brewed.
Yeah, that would be great, and even better if we could get 2 or 3
positions funded so that the success or failure isn't too much tied to
a single individual. But even getting 1 position funded in a
stable-enough fashion that someone would be willing to bet on it seems
like a challenge. (Maybe other people here are less risk-averse than
I am.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
