Thread: Re: Changes to Contributor List
Peter, > Btw., what process is used to determine which organizations become a > "recognised contributor"? Yeah, that's another "ToDo" item ... your company needs to go up there. Criteria are major code contributions and/or sponsoring a full-time developer. We've discussed it on -CORE some, but not come to a specific determination of the level required. However, between you & M & LinuxWorld etc. your company definitely qualifies. And if we're gonna continue this thread, we should move it to -Advocacy. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus writes: > And if we're gonna continue this thread, we should move it to -Advocacy. I'm a bit lost here. It was recently said very clearly, "The target audience of the advocacy site is PHB's, not technical people." And the content of the site supports that in my mind. Yet, the advocacy group keeps absorbing more and more tasks that are not strictly related to development, but are clearly not targeting PHB's exclusively either. There is a wide spectrum between the PostgreSQL guru on the one side and the PHB on the other side. (And the middle of the spectrum happens to be the largest part.) Those are the people I see coming to presentations, expositions, those are the people I am targeting when I'm making flyers, write books and magazine articles, prepare training classes. Those are the people who actually come to our web site in search of information. Those are the people who will like to read a nice press release that is not a bare change log but still free of marketing BS. But nobody's addressing those people. So please, declare your intentions and make them consistent with your actions. Until then, or in any case, the discussion list of the development group is the right place to discuss who gets to be a recognized contributor of that same development group. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Peter, > I'm a bit lost here. I was discussing specifically the "Recognized Corporate Contributors" which is, AFAIK, strictly a PHB thing, no? -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus writes: > I was discussing specifically the "Recognized Corporate Contributors" which > is, AFAIK, strictly a PHB thing, no? No. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Peter, > > I was discussing specifically the "Recognized Corporate Contributors" which > > is, AFAIK, strictly a PHB thing, no? > > No. Please explain. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus writes: > > > I was discussing specifically the "Recognized Corporate Contributors" which > > > is, AFAIK, strictly a PHB thing, no? > > > > No. > > Please explain. I don't see anything in this project that should be strictly a PHB thing, the exception maybe being the weird whitepaper someone is going to write sometime. Anything else is intended for a greatly diverse audience, who may be engineers or decision makers, who may be technically incompetent, technically open-minded, or technical experts, and who may or may not have varying degrees of clues about open source, databases, and PostgreSQL. In other words, the general public. If you disagree, then maybe we should split up into advocacy-for-phbs and advocacy-for-real-people groups. Moreover, you seem to imply that the list of companies should primarily be a marketing instrument of the PostgreSQL project for attracting new users. I don't understand that. I would understand it if the list contained a large number of "big names", but it does not, and it is not set up to strive for that goal. Right now, the list is nothing more than a marketing tool for the listed companies for attracting existing users to them. I think that list is a pretty dumb idea in the first place. We have a list of developers with company names next to them. Let readers make their own recognition evaluation. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:08:57PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> I think that list is a pretty dumb idea in the first place. We have a
> list of developers with company names next to them. Let readers make
> their own recognition evaluation.
I'm not sure that's all it's for. Every time we talk about using
Postgres, people want to know who else uses it. It's really strange,
but for some reason, people seem to believe that a product isn't any
good unless a large number of people are already using it, and that
it _is_ good if a large number of people do use it. (I guess the idea
is that all those Windows users can't be wrong. Oh, wait. . .)
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
Hello, My feeling is that advocacy should be just that: Advocacy. It doesn't matter who the intended audience is in reality. However, it is also important to remember that technical experts typically don't need to be sold on PostgreSQL. PHBs on the other hand probably do and thus much of our Advocacy work should be geared towards them. I believe one place where we are particularly week is PostgreSQL versus MySQL. We should have mountains of dead tree printables on why you should use PostgreSQL and why you shouldn't use mySQL. This can be done in a non-flammatory way. Sincerely, Joshua Drake Peter Eisentraut wrote: >Josh Berkus writes: > > > >>>>I was discussing specifically the "Recognized Corporate Contributors" which >>>>is, AFAIK, strictly a PHB thing, no? >>>> >>>> >>>No. >>> >>> >>Please explain. >> >> > >I don't see anything in this project that should be strictly a PHB thing, >the exception maybe being the weird whitepaper someone is going to write >sometime. Anything else is intended for a greatly diverse audience, who >may be engineers or decision makers, who may be technically incompetent, >technically open-minded, or technical experts, and who may or may not have >varying degrees of clues about open source, databases, and PostgreSQL. >In other words, the general public. If you disagree, then maybe we should >split up into advocacy-for-phbs and advocacy-for-real-people groups. > >Moreover, you seem to imply that the list of companies should primarily be >a marketing instrument of the PostgreSQL project for attracting new users. >I don't understand that. I would understand it if the list contained a >large number of "big names", but it does not, and it is not set up to >strive for that goal. Right now, the list is nothing more than a >marketing tool for the listed companies for attracting existing users to >them. > >I think that list is a pretty dumb idea in the first place. We have a >list of developers with company names next to them. Let readers make >their own recognition evaluation. > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
Peter, > Right now, the list is nothing more than a > marketing tool for the listed companies for attracting existing users to > them. Yes? That's exactly the intention -- so that existing users and interested parties can see the companies that give major resources to the project. This has a dual purpose: it both provides free advertising for the companies as a tit-for-tat, and shows potential adopters that PostgreSQL is not 100% hobby developers coding in their free time. > I think that list is a pretty dumb idea in the first place. We have a > list of developers with company names next to them. Let readers make > their own recognition evaluation. You seem pretty opposed to the corporate list given that one of your co-workers just requested to be on it. To paraphrase one of my friends who works for an ad agency: "Peter, we're not advertising to YOU." That page is not there for you or for people like you. It is there for IT department managers, PHBs, people considering PostgreSQL, and people looking for high-end paid support. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Andrew Sullivan wrote: >On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:08:57PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > >>I think that list is a pretty dumb idea in the first place. We have a >>list of developers with company names next to them. Let readers make >>their own recognition evaluation. >> >> Your assuming that people are intelligent. In general they are not. In general people want to see that Cisco, Afilias, RedHat, ACS etc... use PostgreSQL. They want graphics, they want teddy bears. J > >I'm not sure that's all it's for. Every time we talk about using >Postgres, people want to know who else uses it. It's really strange, >but for some reason, people seem to believe that a product isn't any >good unless a large number of people are already using it, and that >it _is_ good if a large number of people do use it. (I guess the idea >is that all those Windows users can't be wrong. Oh, wait. . .) > >A > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
*This* we can move to -advocacy. :-) Joshua D. Drake writes: > it is also important to remember that technical experts typically > don't need to be sold on PostgreSQL. I think this assumption is flawed. For example, I think it'd be fair to consider myself a technical expert who is informed about open source. Yet, here are some things you would realy need to sell me on: Debian GNOME vi OpenOffice Python Interbase (Please don't, I'm happy with what I have. :-) ) And that is just one case, not covering the varying degrees between "expert", "aware", and "ignorant". At the expo last week, we had over a hundred visitors, of which none were PHBs, only a handful were relatively ignorant, but over half of the crowd wanted to be "sold" in one way or another. With those people, "selling" is more likely to be fruitful and rewarding. But it needs to be done. > We should have mountains of dead tree printables on why > you should use PostgreSQL and why you shouldn't use mySQL. > This can be done in a non-flammatory way. I think the very fact that you'd do it would be interpreted negatively by many people. I talked to some other major projects at the expo who have obvious opponents. They make it a policy not to do direct comparisons, out of respect and decency. That's tough, but I think it's the way to go. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Andrew Sullivan writes: > I'm not sure that's all it's for. Every time we talk about using > Postgres, people want to know who else uses it. True, but for that you're looking at the wrong list. This is the list of contributors, not of users. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Guys, > > We should have mountains of dead tree printables on why > > you should use PostgreSQL and why you shouldn't use mySQL. > > This can be done in a non-flammatory way. > > I think the very fact that you'd do it would be interpreted negatively by > many people. I talked to some other major projects at the expo who have > obvious opponents. They make it a policy not to do direct comparisons, > out of respect and decency. That's tough, but I think it's the way to go. I for one think that we should do comparisons with *all* major databases, not just MySQL. In fact, maybe we should start with Oracle, DB2, or (my favorite) MS SQL Server first. Go where the money is, y'know? Especially since most of (certainly not all of) the MySQL people have been trying to patch things up lately. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus writes: > Yes? That's exactly the intention -- so that existing users and interested > parties can see the companies that give major resources to the project. Yes, but existing users and most interested parties don't fall into the PHB category, nor do most PHB's fall into the existing users or interested parties category, nor do most existing users fall into the group that one advocates to. Hence my original point: the list of supporting companies does not primarily belong in the advocacy realm. > You seem pretty opposed to the corporate list given that one of your > co-workers just requested to be on it. Well, if there must be a list, then why not be on it? :-) > It is there for IT department managers, PHBs, people considering > PostgreSQL, and people looking for high-end paid support. Great, that's exactly what I wanted to hear. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Peter, > Hence my original point: the list of supporting companies > does not primarily belong in the advocacy realm. 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. 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. > > It is there for IT department managers, PHBs, people considering > > PostgreSQL, and people looking for high-end paid support. > > Great, that's exactly what I wanted to hear. I can't tell over e-mail whether you're agreeing with me or being sarcastic. Clue? -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
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
Josh Berkus wrote: > Peter, > > > Btw., what process is used to determine which organizations become a > > "recognised contributor"? > > Yeah, that's another "ToDo" item ... your company needs to go up there. > > Criteria are major code contributions and/or sponsoring a full-time developer. > We've discussed it on -CORE some, but not come to a specific determination of > the level required. However, between you & M & LinuxWorld etc. your > company definitely qualifies. I don't think the developers have to be full-time, like me and Tom. Any company that consistently contributes developer time for items other than "we need a feature" should be listed, I think. Peter, for example, isn't full-time PostgreSQL, but is contributing greatly, and Command Prompt has offered to contribute a developer toward Win32 --- I am seeing more and more of these folks coming around, and it is beefing up our development team. We can help these companies also by providing speaking and trade show opportunities. -- 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
Imagine this discussion with your boss:
You: I want to spend an hour a day at work on PostgreSQL
community work.
Boss: Hmm. (How do I justify this?)
You: Our company will be listed on the main PostgreSQL web
site.
Boss: Fine. (That gives me a legitimate business purpose.)
This is why listing companies/individuals is good for several reasons,
and this is one of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
>
--
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
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:08:57PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > I think that list is a pretty dumb idea in the first place. We have a > > list of developers with company names next to them. Let readers make > > their own recognition evaluation. > > I'm not sure that's all it's for. Every time we talk about using > Postgres, people want to know who else uses it. It's really strange, > but for some reason, people seem to believe that a product isn't any > good unless a large number of people are already using it, and that > it _is_ good if a large number of people do use it. (I guess the idea > is that all those Windows users can't be wrong. Oh, wait. . .) You have heard the term "first adopters". These people want to be second adopters. :-) -- 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
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:57:12PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> True, but for that you're looking at the wrong list. This is the list of
> contributors, not of users.
I tend to agree with that. Maybe the trick is to talk about
"featured users" or something? I dunno, I keep trying to keep the
points off my hair.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:57:12PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > True, but for that you're looking at the wrong list. This is the list of > > contributors, not of users. > > I tend to agree with that. Maybe the trick is to talk about > "featured users" or something? I dunno, I keep trying to keep the > points off my hair. Maybe a "developer of the month" feature. :-) -- 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
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:24:04AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Maybe a "developer of the month" feature. :-) It would be quite cool if, say, General Bits could ocassionaly carry an interview with a Postgres developer. (Now that would be a mess to translate) -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Linux transformó mi computadora, de una `máquina para hacer cosas', en un aparato realmente entretenido, sobre el cual cada día aprendo algo nuevo" (Jaime Salinas)
After a long battle with technology,alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl (Alvaro Herrera), an earthling, wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:24:04AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> Maybe a "developer of the month" feature. :-)
>
> It would be quite cool if, say, General Bits could ocassionaly carry an
> interview with a Postgres developer.
> (Now that would be a mess to translate)
_I_ think that some inquiries should be made back and forth between
some combination of [Core Guys] and [Linux Magazine] for an interview.
There have lately been conspicuous interviews in LM with 'high ranking
folks' associated with such notable systems as:
- XFree86 (various participants)
- Linux 2.6 (Andrew Morton)
- Beowulf (various participants)
- Perl (Damien Conway)
- That other database system :-)
A discussion that drew in several of the PG "Core" would likely make
good reading, and a goodly attraction of interest.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','ntlug.org').
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/advocacy.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #172. "I will allow guards to operate under
a flexible work schedule. That way if one is feeling sleepy, he can
call for a replacement, punch out, take a nap, and come back refreshed
and alert to finish out his shift. <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Uhm, what does 'PHB' mean? Anastasios
Anastasios Hatzis wrote: > Uhm, what does 'PHB' mean? Pointy-haired boss, from the Dilbert comic strip. It is a boss who doesn't understand technology, but thinks he does and manages you accordingly. -- 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
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:12:50AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > You: I want to spend an hour a day at work on PostgreSQL > community work. > Boss: Hmm. (How do I justify this?) > You: Our company will be listed on the main PostgreSQL web > site. > Boss: Fine. (That gives me a legitimate business purpose.) That'd be cool for me, but what 'main PostgreSQL web site' are you talking about? Is this www.postgresql.org? Or advocacy.postgresql.org? Or maybe it'd be developer.postgresql.org? I really think they should be unified. Any developer here really thinks that developer things _have_ to be apart? -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "No hay hombre que no aspire a la plenitud, es decir, la suma de experiencias de que un hombre es capaz"
Alvaro, > That'd be cool for me, but what 'main PostgreSQL web site' are you > talking about? Is this www.postgresql.org? Or advocacy.postgresql.org? > Or maybe it'd be developer.postgresql.org? I think everyone agrees with the idea of unifying www, advocacy, and developer. Techdocs and Gborg will stay seperate becuase they're based on different technology. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:17:12AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Alvaro, > > > That'd be cool for me, but what 'main PostgreSQL web site' are you > > talking about? Is this www.postgresql.org? Or advocacy.postgresql.org? > > Or maybe it'd be developer.postgresql.org? > > I think everyone agrees with the idea of unifying www, advocacy, and > developer. Techdocs and Gborg will stay seperate becuase they're based on > different technology. Cool. I thought I had understand otherwise on a mail from Robert Treat. Sorry for the confusion. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "La rebeldía es la virtud original del hombre" (Arthur Schopenhauer)
Guys, > _I_ think that some inquiries should be made back and forth between > some combination of [Core Guys] and [Linux Magazine] for an interview. I can set this up if you want; I already write for LM (Josh D., sorry for jumping in). Actually, the holdup is finding a good interviewer; I suck at taking interviews. I'll see if Martin has anyone. Volunteers for interviewees? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus writes: > I for one think that we should do comparisons with *all* major databases, not > just MySQL. In fact, maybe we should start with Oracle, DB2, or (my > favorite) MS SQL Server first. Go where the money is, y'know? Certainly, gathering that information in a central place would be beneficial. But we should be careful about the following possibilities: 1. Basing a marketing strategy on "we are better than X" rather than "we will solve your problems because" is dangerous in multiple dimensions. So, make this information available on the side, but don't rub it into people's faces. 2. There is a real risk that we will come out badly compared to some candidates, when you consider their full feature set. 2.a. If you don't consider their full feature set, your analysis will be rejected as biases or ignorant. 3. You might get into legal trouble. So, in the first round I would treat these documents as quasi-internal, serving as references of information for preparing other material or, say, preparing for tough questions at a presentation, but not as flyer type material. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing whenjosh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus)wrote: > Guys, > >> _I_ think that some inquiries should be made back and forth between >> some combination of [Core Guys] and [Linux Magazine] for an interview. > > I can set this up if you want; I already write for LM (Josh D., sorry for > jumping in). Actually, the holdup is finding a good interviewer; I suck at > taking interviews. I'll see if Martin has anyone. > > Volunteers for interviewees? And note that it is well worth reviewing previous LM articles of this sort such as the one on "That Other Database." A GOOD interview would certainly _not_ be a response to that article, but rather do the same thing that article does, which is to present the interesting things about the project. -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes, because by that time you will be a mile away and have their shoes. -- email sig, Brian Servis
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I think that list is a pretty dumb idea in the first place. We have a
> list of developers with company names next to them. Let readers make
> their own recognition evaluation.
That works if you think that the only form of corporate support is
sponsoring a developer. Seems to me that's a bit narrow-minded.
For instance, hub.org is contributing (by providing hosting services)
way more than you might think from the number of times it appears on
the developer list...
regards, tom lane