On 14 January 2013 19:23, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>
>> So in order to show we have international support, we list only a few
>> of the countries that we operate in? Huh.
>
> Sarcasm ill becomes you.
I'm pointing out that your idea is flawed by illustrating it has the
opposite effect to the one intended.
Describing that as sarcasm isn't accurate, plus it's evading the point.
>>> The Sponsors page is also quite clear that only the HQ country of each
>>> company is listed. Nobody thinks that Red Hat or Google is only in the
>>> USA; your worry that people will think that 2Q is UK-only on that basis
>>> is quite unfounded.
>>
>> I guess if it's not there for actual information purposes, then it
>> would be OK to remove it?
>
> I would be opposed to removing it. The entire sponsors page is not
> there for informational purposes: it is promotional, to show people the
> breadth of corporate support which the PostgreSQL project has. Listing
> the primary host countries of the various companies contributes to this,
> by showing that the PostgreSQL project is not a single-country project
> (as some OSS projects are).
>
> I agree that bringing back the PostgreSQL World Map would accomplish the
> same purpose, and if someone wants to code that up, pgsql-www is there
> on Git for you to get started. In the meantime, I don't agree that
> anyone has demonstrated any problem with listing the sponsor's home
> countries, and I feel they serve an advocacy purpose.
The World Map would be fine, if you're allowed multiple pins on it.
Presumably someone has checked with all of those companies to see
where they are actually officially headquartered?
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
