Thread: Should core decide the name?
I'm going to repost the question I posed in my last email as the start of what I'm hoping might be a thread to end this discussion. Are you willing to accept the resolution of the naming question as a pronouncement from core, who can decide the matter amongst themselves however they see fit? +1 for me. -- Ron Peterson https://www.yellowbank.com/
On 8/31/07, Ron Peterson <ron.peterson@yellowbank.com> wrote:
> I'm going to repost the question I posed in my last email as the start
> of what I'm hoping might be a thread to end this discussion.
>
> Are you willing to accept the resolution of the naming question as a
> pronouncement from core, who can decide the matter amongst themselves
> however they see fit?
>
> +1 for me.
Personally I feel that it goes without saying. They [the core] do most
of the work, and they do excellent work, so I feel confident that whatever
they choose will be for the best. They should be the ones to decide
such important matters -- it is their blood and sweat in the source code. :)
I don't want to say that community has no voice in it -- it has, and it
is important, just as the community is important for our favourite RDBMS,
but I would hate to usurp power over Core. :)
Regards,
Dawid
Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > On 8/31/07, Ron Peterson <ron.peterson@yellowbank.com> wrote: > > I'm going to repost the question I posed in my last email as the start > > of what I'm hoping might be a thread to end this discussion. > > > > Are you willing to accept the resolution of the naming question as a > > pronouncement from core, who can decide the matter amongst themselves > > however they see fit? > > > > +1 for me. > > Personally I feel that it goes without saying. They [the core] do most > of the work, and they do excellent work, so I feel confident that whatever > they choose will be for the best. They should be the ones to decide > such important matters -- it is their blood and sweat in the source code. :) > > I don't want to say that community has no voice in it -- it has, and it > is important, just as the community is important for our favourite RDBMS, > but I would hate to usurp power over Core. :) Uh, really the community puts in as much work or more than the core people. The idea that core is doing most of the work is something I hope is never true. Core are just figureheads when leadership is needed in non-technical cases. Of course, this naming thing might be such a case (break ties). -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
It likely will not happen without a decision from core, imho. This would be a good thing for the core to do. What would be helpful is at the very least, for core to come out in favor of or against, as a group. Otherwise we're going to go in circles, chasing our tails on this subject. Nether side of the divide in the community are likely to change their minds and as such, we won't achieve any sort of meaningful consensus. Gavin On 8/30/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > > On 8/31/07, Ron Peterson <ron.peterson@yellowbank.com> wrote: > > > I'm going to repost the question I posed in my last email as the start > > > of what I'm hoping might be a thread to end this discussion. > > > > > > Are you willing to accept the resolution of the naming question as a > > > pronouncement from core, who can decide the matter amongst themselves > > > however they see fit? > > > > > > +1 for me. > > > > Personally I feel that it goes without saying. They [the core] do most > > of the work, and they do excellent work, so I feel confident that whatever > > they choose will be for the best. They should be the ones to decide > > such important matters -- it is their blood and sweat in the source code. :) > > > > I don't want to say that community has no voice in it -- it has, and it > > is important, just as the community is important for our favourite RDBMS, > > but I would hate to usurp power over Core. :) > > Uh, really the community puts in as much work or more than the core > people. The idea that core is doing most of the work is something I > hope is never true. Core are just figureheads when leadership is needed > in non-technical cases. Of course, this naming thing might be such a > case (break ties). > > -- > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com > > + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
On 8/31/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> > Personally I feel that it goes without saying. They [the core] do most
> > of the work, and they do excellent work, so I feel confident that whatever
> > they choose will be for the best. They should be the ones to decide
> > such important matters -- it is their blood and sweat in the source code. :)
> >
> > I don't want to say that community has no voice in it -- it has, and it
> > is important, just as the community is important for our favourite RDBMS,
> > but I would hate to usurp power over Core. :)
>
> Uh, really the community puts in as much work or more than the core
> people. The idea that core is doing most of the work is something I
> hope is never true. Core are just figureheads when leadership is needed
> in non-technical cases. Of course, this naming thing might be such a
> case (break ties).
Perhaps I wrote it from wrong angle. I feel that the more people do
to help the project, the more vote they should have in matters like
this. In other words I feel that I should have much less vote than
you do -- exactly because so far you did a lot of work and I have not.
It should not stop me from voicing my opinions (and it does not ;)),
but it should not in my power to have a deciding vote.
Regards,
Dawid
Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > On 8/31/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > > > Personally I feel that it goes without saying. They [the core] do most > > > of the work, and they do excellent work, so I feel confident that whatever > > > they choose will be for the best. They should be the ones to decide > > > such important matters -- it is their blood and sweat in the source code. :) > > > > > > I don't want to say that community has no voice in it -- it has, and it > > > is important, just as the community is important for our favourite RDBMS, > > > but I would hate to usurp power over Core. :) > > > > Uh, really the community puts in as much work or more than the core > > people. The idea that core is doing most of the work is something I > > hope is never true. Core are just figureheads when leadership is needed > > in non-technical cases. Of course, this naming thing might be such a > > case (break ties). > > Perhaps I wrote it from wrong angle. I feel that the more people do > to help the project, the more vote they should have in matters like > this. In other words I feel that I should have much less vote than > you do -- exactly because so far you did a lot of work and I have not. > > It should not stop me from voicing my opinions (and it does not ;)), > but it should not in my power to have a deciding vote. Typically at this stage everyone gives arguments about why their option is best, and then either we align with a general agreement (unlikely), or we take a vote or core weighs in and hopefull that leads to general agreement. However, looking at the core members who have already voted publicly here, I don't think they have a unified voice either. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thursday 30 August 2007 21:16, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> > On 8/31/07, Ron Peterson <ron.peterson@yellowbank.com> wrote:
> > > I'm going to repost the question I posed in my last email as the start
> > > of what I'm hoping might be a thread to end this discussion.
> > >
> > > Are you willing to accept the resolution of the naming question as a
> > > pronouncement from core, who can decide the matter amongst themselves
> > > however they see fit?
> > >
> > > +1 for me.
> >
> > Personally I feel that it goes without saying. They [the core] do most
> > of the work, and they do excellent work, so I feel confident that
> > whatever they choose will be for the best. They should be the ones to
> > decide such important matters -- it is their blood and sweat in the
> > source code. :)
> >
> > I don't want to say that community has no voice in it -- it has, and it
> > is important, just as the community is important for our favourite RDBMS,
> > but I would hate to usurp power over Core. :)
>
> Uh, really the community puts in as much work or more than the core
> people. The idea that core is doing most of the work is something I
> hope is never true. Core are just figureheads when leadership is needed
> in non-technical cases. Of course, this naming thing might be such a
> case (break ties).
Well, we can't change the name unless core is on board, since it will require
changes in the source code. Of course we'll also need to aquire domain names
too, so even a decision by core that we want to change the name would require
some waiting period to see if it could really pan out.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 30 August 2007 21:16, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > > > On 8/31/07, Ron Peterson <ron.peterson@yellowbank.com> wrote: > > > > I'm going to repost the question I posed in my last email as the start > > > > of what I'm hoping might be a thread to end this discussion. > > > > > > > > Are you willing to accept the resolution of the naming question as a > > > > pronouncement from core, who can decide the matter amongst themselves > > > > however they see fit? > > > > > > > > +1 for me. > > > > > > Personally I feel that it goes without saying. They [the core] do most > > > of the work, and they do excellent work, so I feel confident that > > > whatever they choose will be for the best. They should be the ones to > > > decide such important matters -- it is their blood and sweat in the > > > source code. :) > > > > > > I don't want to say that community has no voice in it -- it has, and it > > > is important, just as the community is important for our favourite RDBMS, > > > but I would hate to usurp power over Core. :) > > > > Uh, really the community puts in as much work or more than the core > > people. The idea that core is doing most of the work is something I > > hope is never true. Core are just figureheads when leadership is needed > > in non-technical cases. Of course, this naming thing might be such a > > case (break ties). > > Well, we can't change the name unless core is on board, since it will require > changes in the source code. Of course we'll also need to aquire domain names > too, so even a decision by core that we want to change the name would require > some waiting period to see if it could really pan out. Only "Postgres" requires domain names, "PostgresQL" does not. Of course core could make any changes, but cvs committers could make the change too. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Thursday, August 30, 2007 21:50:26 -0400 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Only "Postgres" requires domain names, "PostgresQL" does not. Of course > core could make any changes, but cvs committers could make the change > too. And core *could* very quickly reverse those changes and remove comit access :) - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFG13TS4QvfyHIvDvMRAooQAJ97qIIPQ9+PW4wbLSXuSDZRmH5u0gCglFUp 4MrLwwqgoaDoVwdnRMALQnw= =O0no -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----