In the various threads I've seen several people who have said they
will step up and do parts of the work. I will help on site design
issues. Heck I've even gone as far as to show how the current header
image would look. It obviously would need more work. I think the
decision has to be made as to if there will be a change to get any
farther down the road. If it's not going to happen, then any amount
of planning is a waste of time.
Is it too much, or the wrong question of Core to have a decision if
it's even possible/probable - should a good plan emerge on how to make
the change and who will do the work?
Gavin
On 9/4/07, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> From my perspective, this whole discussion ... and the EDB survey, and the
> headcount on this thread, etc., is pretty much entirely moot. 40+ people are
> arguing about what color to paint the bike shed, and not one person has
> picked up a brush.
>
> When someone steps forward with a concrete proposal, some market research (and
> no, unscientific surveys of the existing community is not market research),
> and allocations of volunteer time to do the work necessary for a name change
> (something I'd peg at 150 to 250 hours combined work over the next year),
> this whole discussion is pretty darned pointless.
>
> I'll point out, for example, that despite identifying needs to work on both
> the PostgreSQL "about" pages and the 8.3 press release, it's still the 5-6
> old regulars doing 100% of the actual writing and development. And the old
> regulars do NOT have the spare time to even think about a name change.
>
> So Ron, Andy, others who are hot to change to Postgres: let's see a concrete
> proposal, and one that comes up with new resources to do the new work.
> Otherwise, let's terminate these threads and move on to some actual promoting
> PostgreSQL.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL @ Sun
> San Francisco
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
