Re: 9.5 Release press coverage - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy
| From | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: 9.5 Release press coverage |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CANP8+j+jV5UpDPvopun11sLk2zHj9-5=tcQ3KWFqAOvX-XYWXg@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: 9.5 Release press coverage (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: 9.5 Release press coverage
(Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Re: 9.5 Release press coverage (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| List | pgsql-advocacy |
On 12 January 2016 at 14:58, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
--
Three companies offered PR help with the release: EDB, Equinux, and
Dalibo. I know that other companies have paid PR staff, some of them
quite good ones. So while I'm down with giving advice to the EDB folks
on being community-friendly, I'm really not happy with the amount of
shit they get from various members of the community every release,
especially from employees of companies who could have offered PR help
and didn't.
I wasn't aware that you were accepting external assistance; had we been aware you would have received offers from 2ndQuadrant and probably others also. Not everybody that cares and can help reads this list regularly.
For the future, if you want additional help, just ask. You can rely on 2ndQuadrant every release, every time.
Renee did a terrific job getting the 9.5 release in front of analysts
and publications who don't return my calls; I would say that 60% of our
english-language press coverage is due to her team's efforts.
Renee did a terrific job, yes, though the result makes people think that the 9.5 release was produced by EDB.
When you say "our" press coverage, presumably you mean the Postgres Community? How can it be "our" press coverage when we are not mentioned anywhere? What you mean is that only 40% of the press coverage about Postgres 9.5 mentions the people that produced the product. Wow, that has to be some kind of international record for poor PR.
Oxford dictionary thinks that "announce" means "make a formal public statement about a fact, occurrence, or intention.". To "announce" something clearly implies that you have the right to make *formal* public statements, which in this case they clearly do not. Other definitions use the word official.
"EDB ... today announced the general availability of PostgreSQL 9.5" clearly implies that the release was announced by EDB and not by the Postgres Community. Reasonable, objective observers of that statement would be confused by the word "announce", since it clearly implies that EDB is the main developer. (To refute this, please measure how many time people use the word "announce" in regard to new software releases when they do not own the software).
That obscures the truth and is unhelpful to the PostgreSQL Community, since we gain strength from acting together.
I accept that the post was approved by mistake and is not likely to be approved in the future. What is surprising is it was sent at all, to anyone. Surely any group should be concerned when someone starts making formal announcements about them, especially when it is an insider, acting without authority.
At what point does the core team act against this? Many people are disappointed to see no censure, no action, not even disagreement with those actions.
Yes, it's worth discussing "how can we do better next time". But
EnterpriseDB is, as a company, a big contributor to the PostgreSQL
project, so please let's treat the EDB folks as contributors and stop
with the shit-fests.
If we are to consider EDB's contributions, would it not also be reasonable to consider other people's contributions as well, since those have been obscured?
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
pgsql-advocacy by date: