Thread: Re: [HACKERS] Companies involved in development
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 17:13, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:05:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I think we are going to see more company-funded developers working on > > PostgreSQL. There are a handful now, but I can see lots more coming. > > I am going to work on getting those funding companies more visibility. > > We originally were concerned that such involvement may harm the > > development process, but history has shown that it has only been a huge > > benefit for the community. > > I agree, and it's also true that while the visibility of all you > paid-to-hack types is high, the fact that you _are_ paid, and by wha > companies, is not. > At a minimum we could have people attach a company name to their developer bios (http://developer.postgresql.org/bios.php) if their company pays them to hack on postgresql. (at the developers discretion of course) At the least I would think companies like postgresql inc would benefit from publicity that "we employee X number of pg developers." We could also generate a list of companies sponsoring postgresql development, but we'd have to come up with some criterion as to what it means to be a sponsors. For example, a coworker and I were discussing a patch he is getting ready to submit this morning while we were "on the clock". While our company doesn't have an issue with this, I don't know that I would say they sponsor postgresql development, they just happen to employ two guys who are more involved than most and will hack code if it scratches our particular itch. Robert Treat
Robert Treat wrote: > On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 17:13, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:05:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I think we are going to see more company-funded developers working on > > > PostgreSQL. There are a handful now, but I can see lots more coming. > > > I am going to work on getting those funding companies more visibility. > > > We originally were concerned that such involvement may harm the > > > development process, but history has shown that it has only been a huge > > > benefit for the community. > > > > I agree, and it's also true that while the visibility of all you > > paid-to-hack types is high, the fact that you _are_ paid, and by wha > > companies, is not. > > > > At a minimum we could have people attach a company name to their > developer bios (http://developer.postgresql.org/bios.php) if their > company pays them to hack on postgresql. (at the developers discretion > of course) At the least I would think companies like postgresql inc > would benefit from publicity that "we employee X number of pg > developers." > > We could also generate a list of companies sponsoring postgresql > development, but we'd have to come up with some criterion as to what it > means to be a sponsors. For example, a coworker and I were discussing a > patch he is getting ready to submit this morning while we were "on the > clock". While our company doesn't have an issue with this, I don't know > that I would say they sponsor postgresql development, they just happen > to employ two guys who are more involved than most and will hack code if > it scratches our particular itch. Yea, that is a tough one, but anyone who is submitting patches regularly and does _some_ work on company time is eligible, I think. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Robert Treat wrote: > On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 17:13, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:05:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I think we are going to see more company-funded developers working on > > > PostgreSQL. There are a handful now, but I can see lots more coming. > > > I am going to work on getting those funding companies more visibility. > > > We originally were concerned that such involvement may harm the > > > development process, but history has shown that it has only been a huge > > > benefit for the community. > > > > I agree, and it's also true that while the visibility of all you > > paid-to-hack types is high, the fact that you _are_ paid, and by wha > > companies, is not. > > > > At a minimum we could have people attach a company name to their > developer bios (http://developer.postgresql.org/bios.php) if their > company pays them to hack on postgresql. (at the developers discretion > of course) At the least I would think companies like postgresql inc > would benefit from publicity that "we employee X number of pg > developers." > > We could also generate a list of companies sponsoring postgresql > development, but we'd have to come up with some criterion as to what it > means to be a sponsors. For example, a coworker and I were discussing a > patch he is getting ready to submit this morning while we were "on the > clock". While our company doesn't have an issue with this, I don't know > that I would say they sponsor postgresql development, they just happen > to employ two guys who are more involved than most and will hack code if > it scratches our particular itch. Yea, that is a tough one, but anyone who is submitting patches regularly and does _some_ work on company time is eligible, I think. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073