Josh Berkus writes:
> But it does! You pointed it out yourself .... for the hackers & OSS tech
> people, they can just look at the descriptions of the major contributors and
> figure things out for themselves. They don't need a list with company logos
> & links.
Other people have pointed out that this is not really sufficient. So if
there is to be a separate company list, then it should be next to the
individuals list.
> This is important because we've (people on the Advocacy list) briefly
> discussed expanding this page to cover companies which, in the future, make
> *financial* contributions to PostgreSQL ... sort of a "corporate donors"
> page. This works very well in standard nonprofit fundraising; the project
> gets $, and the donors get publicity. Obviously, contributors would have to
> be categorized, but that's an issue for when we're ready to set it up.
When we're ready. But we're not.
But then again, this sort of list would mostly be of use to existing
users, in the sense, "They support a project I like, so I like them."
You could only really make use of that for attracting potential users if
you could make a clear case the the amount of donations is sufficient to
guarantee any kind of longevity of the project. I think that will be hard
to do (because there is, in fact, absolutely no relation). But hopefully,
by the time we've arrived there, this silly web site fragmentation will be
over and this question will be moot.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
