Thread: Changing the sponsors page
All, http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors I don't like this page. I've been dragging my feet on updating it because I don't think it works the way it is at all. The current scheme of Platinum/Gold/Silver/Bronze was designed by Josh Drake, and put through because he did the web work to make it happen. However, I don't think the criteria there make a lot of sense, and we've never had consensus on the "level" scheme -- we've just kept what's there because nobody could be bothered to rework it. Furthermore, I don't think it's possible to come up with a consensus on any system which involves more than 2 levels and apply it. Therefore, I would like to simplify this page into two categories: Major Sponsors and Sponsors. Major Sponsors would be companies who have supported one or more full-time contributors, or the equivalent, for more than one year. Sponsors would be any company who has consistently contributed substantial developer time and/or money to PostgreSQL (i.e. several $thousand) for a year or more. A company which does *only* event sponsorships wouldn't count, because they already get credit through the event. I think this scheme would be a lot simpler and easier to maintain, and result in less arguing about what level someone should be. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 14:49 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors > > I don't like this page. which reminds me... Why do we keep Sun there? Oh, is that Oracle now? :) -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Attachment
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
I think that is a good idea. And, a simpler way to reflect the commitment of
those organizations supporting the community in a more democratic way (this
isn't for a conference after all). It also allows you to recognize those in
the community that have invested significant resources to further the
development of PostgreSQL.
All,
http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors
I don't like this page. I've been dragging my feet on updating it
because I don't think it works the way it is at all.
The current scheme of Platinum/Gold/Silver/Bronze was designed by Josh
Drake, and put through because he did the web work to make it happen.
However, I don't think the criteria there make a lot of sense, and we've
never had consensus on the "level" scheme -- we've just kept what's
there because nobody could be bothered to rework it. Furthermore, I
don't think it's possible to come up with a consensus on any system
which involves more than 2 levels and apply it.
Therefore, I would like to simplify this page into two categories: Major
Sponsors and Sponsors.
Major Sponsors would be companies who have supported one or more
full-time contributors, or the equivalent, for more than one year.
Sponsors would be any company who has consistently contributed
substantial developer time and/or money to PostgreSQL (i.e. several
$thousand) for a year or more. A company which does *only* event
sponsorships wouldn't count, because they already get credit through the
event.
I think this scheme would be a lot simpler and easier to maintain, and
result in less arguing about what level someone should be.
I think that is a good idea. And, a simpler way to reflect the commitment of
those organizations supporting the community in a more democratic way (this
isn't for a conference after all). It also allows you to recognize those in
the community that have invested significant resources to further the
development of PostgreSQL.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy
--
Sean Crowley
Director of Marketing
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise Postgres Company
sean.crowley@enterprisedb.com
w - 781-357-3202
c - 617-584-5630
Website: www.enterprisedb.com
Follow us:
EnterpriseDB Blog: http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/enterprisedb
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/companies/14958
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/EnterpriseDB/11117810845?ref=ts
This e-mail message (and any attachment) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. This message contains information from EnterpriseDB Corporation that may be privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized to receive this for the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, retention, archiving, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message.
On 05/12/2011 02:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors > > I don't like this page. I've been dragging my feet on updating it > because I don't think it works the way it is at all. > > The current scheme of Platinum/Gold/Silver/Bronze was designed by Josh > Drake, and put through because he did the web work to make it happen. I was the catalyst to get it moving but it was discussed ad-naseum with you, dave page and magnus (and myself). > However, I don't think the criteria there make a lot of sense, and we've > never had consensus on the "level" scheme -- we've just kept what's > there because nobody could be bothered to rework it. That is also not true. See comments above. > Furthermore, I > don't think it's possible to come up with a consensus on any system > which involves more than 2 levels and apply it. That isn't true. There was a large discussion between you, Dave, Magnus and I. It has been documented and agreed upon. > > I think this scheme would be a lot simpler and easier to maintain, and > result in less arguing about what level someone should be. Except that nobody argues about it. The sponsorship team discusses and just runs with it. Can you provide some evidence of blockage in terms of getting people appropriate sponsorship levels? The only hold up is getting people to actually edit the page. Which granted is always a slow process cause nobody wants to do that. I am not opposed to a new scheme should there be an actual basis to change the one we have. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ @cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579
Em 12-05-2011 18:49, Josh Berkus escreveu: > I think this scheme would be a lot simpler and easier to maintain, and > result in less arguing about what level someone should be. > I like the idea. Isn't it difficult to differentiate full-time from part-time? I prefer the same criteria used to list contributors, e.g., look at historical contributions from that company/organization. -- Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Can you provide some evidence of blockage in terms of getting > people appropriate sponsorship levels? About 2 years ago a Core team member observed to me that 2ndQuadrant seemed to fulfil the criteria for the highest level of sponsorship, as defined on that page currently. I requested the web page be changed, but nothing was done. I've been requesting this be re-examined regularly since then. > The only hold up is getting people to actually edit the page. Which granted > is always a slow process cause nobody wants to do that. Which is regrettably not true, because we've volunteered repeatedly to do that. I have no beef with you JD and these comments are made only in direct response to your questions. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 02:53, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On 05/12/2011 02:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> I think this scheme would be a lot simpler and easier to maintain, and >> result in less arguing about what level someone should be. > > Except that nobody argues about it. The sponsorship team discusses and just > runs with it. Can you provide some evidence of blockage in terms of getting > people appropriate sponsorship levels? Despite asking more tha nonce, and getting confirmed more than once, my company is still not listed under sponsors, even though they have sponsored *many* hours of both development and sysadmin work for me for over three years now. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 02:53, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> On 05/12/2011 02:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> I think this scheme would be a lot simpler and easier to maintain, and >>> result in less arguing about what level someone should be. >> >> Except that nobody argues about it. The sponsorship team discusses and just >> runs with it. Can you provide some evidence of blockage in terms of getting >> people appropriate sponsorship levels? > > Despite asking more tha nonce, and getting confirmed more than once, > my company is still not listed under sponsors, even though they have > sponsored *many* hours of both development and sysadmin work for me > for over three years now. Out of interest, who did you ask? I don't remember it being me, but then you know what my memory is like. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > >> Can you provide some evidence of blockage in terms of getting >> people appropriate sponsorship levels? > > About 2 years ago a Core team member observed to me that 2ndQuadrant > seemed to fulfil the criteria for the highest level of sponsorship, as > defined on that page currently. > > I requested the web page be changed, but nothing was done. I suspect I dropped the ball on that one, for which I apologise. I've committed a fix now. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:All,
http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors
I don't like this page. I've been dragging my feet on updating it
because I don't think it works the way it is at all.
The current scheme of Platinum/Gold/Silver/Bronze was designed by Josh
Drake, and put through because he did the web work to make it happen.
However, I don't think the criteria there make a lot of sense, and we've
never had consensus on the "level" scheme -- we've just kept what's
there because nobody could be bothered to rework it. Furthermore, I
don't think it's possible to come up with a consensus on any system
which involves more than 2 levels and apply it.
Therefore, I would like to simplify this page into two categories: Major
Sponsors and Sponsors.
Major Sponsors would be companies who have supported one or more
full-time contributors, or the equivalent, for more than one year.
Sponsors would be any company who has consistently contributed
substantial developer time and/or money to PostgreSQL (i.e. several
$thousand) for a year or more. A company which does *only* event
sponsorships wouldn't count, because they already get credit through the
event.
I think this scheme would be a lot simpler and easier to maintain, and
result in less arguing about what level someone should be.
I think that is a good idea. And, a simpler way to reflect the commitment of
those organizations supporting the community in a more democratic way (this
isn't for a conference after all). It also allows you to recognize those in
the community that have invested significant resources to further the
development of PostgreSQL.
i would argue along the same line. two levels are enough.
major sponsor and sponsor seems like a good idea.
talking about this page: i just noticed that we are not on.
we have done a fair amount of ECPG patches and some other issues in the past.
maybe you can put us on as well ... we have been around for 11 years after all ;).
many thanks,
hans
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
On May 13, 2011 9:58 AM, "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 02:53, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/12/2011 02:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>> I think this scheme would be a lot simpler and easier to maintain, and
> >>> result in less arguing about what level someone should be.
> >>
> >> Except that nobody argues about it. The sponsorship team discusses and just
> >> runs with it. Can you provide some evidence of blockage in terms of getting
> >> people appropriate sponsorship levels?
> >
> > Despite asking more tha nonce, and getting confirmed more than once,
> > my company is still not listed under sponsors, even though they have
> > sponsored *many* hours of both development and sysadmin work for me
> > for over three years now.
>
> Out of interest, who did you ask? I don't remember it being me, but
> then you know what my memory is like.
Pretty sure I've mentioned it to you. But the "formal asking" was to at least one, but I think both, the Josh:es.
/Magnus
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > On May 13, 2011 9:58 AM, "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 02:53, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> >> > wrote: >> >> On 05/12/2011 02:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >>> I think this scheme would be a lot simpler and easier to maintain, and >> >>> result in less arguing about what level someone should be. >> >> >> >> Except that nobody argues about it. The sponsorship team discusses and >> >> just >> >> runs with it. Can you provide some evidence of blockage in terms of >> >> getting >> >> people appropriate sponsorship levels? >> > >> > Despite asking more tha nonce, and getting confirmed more than once, >> > my company is still not listed under sponsors, even though they have >> > sponsored *many* hours of both development and sysadmin work for me >> > for over three years now. >> >> Out of interest, who did you ask? I don't remember it being me, but >> then you know what my memory is like. > > Pretty sure I've mentioned it to you. But the "formal asking" was to at > least one, but I think both, the Josh:es. That's not what is documented here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Sponsoring Does the sponsorship committee have a mailing list? -selena -- http://chesnok.com
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 16:06, Selena Deckelmann <selena@chesnok.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> >> On May 13, 2011 9:58 AM, "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> >>> wrote: >>> > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 02:53, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> On 05/12/2011 02:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> >>> I think this scheme would be a lot simpler and easier to maintain, and >>> >>> result in less arguing about what level someone should be. >>> >> >>> >> Except that nobody argues about it. The sponsorship team discusses and >>> >> just >>> >> runs with it. Can you provide some evidence of blockage in terms of >>> >> getting >>> >> people appropriate sponsorship levels? >>> > >>> > Despite asking more tha nonce, and getting confirmed more than once, >>> > my company is still not listed under sponsors, even though they have >>> > sponsored *many* hours of both development and sysadmin work for me >>> > for over three years now. >>> >>> Out of interest, who did you ask? I don't remember it being me, but >>> then you know what my memory is like. >> >> Pretty sure I've mentioned it to you. But the "formal asking" was to at >> least one, but I think both, the Josh:es. > > That's not what is documented here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Sponsoring AFAICS, that page says nothing about whom to contact to get on the list, so I contacted a couple of the members on the committee. It seemed logical... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 16:06, Selena Deckelmann <selena@chesnok.com> wrote: >> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> >>> On May 13, 2011 9:58 AM, "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 02:53, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> On 05/12/2011 02:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>>> >>> I think this scheme would be a lot simpler and easier to maintain, and >>>> >>> result in less arguing about what level someone should be. >>>> >> >>>> >> Except that nobody argues about it. The sponsorship team discusses and >>>> >> just >>>> >> runs with it. Can you provide some evidence of blockage in terms of >>>> >> getting >>>> >> people appropriate sponsorship levels? >>>> > >>>> > Despite asking more tha nonce, and getting confirmed more than once, >>>> > my company is still not listed under sponsors, even though they have >>>> > sponsored *many* hours of both development and sysadmin work for me >>>> > for over three years now. >>>> >>>> Out of interest, who did you ask? I don't remember it being me, but >>>> then you know what my memory is like. >>> >>> Pretty sure I've mentioned it to you. But the "formal asking" was to at >>> least one, but I think both, the Josh:es. >> >> That's not what is documented here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Sponsoring > > AFAICS, that page says nothing about whom to contact to get on the > list, so I contacted a couple of the members on the committee. It > seemed logical... Sorry - I meant that the process to get on the list was defined as a vote by the four people on the list. Not that the method of contacting them was well-defined. :) Perhaps our sponsorship committee could clarify this process a bit. (cc'd) -selena -- http://chesnok.com
On Friday, May 13, 2011 7:14:35 am Selena Deckelmann wrote: > >> > >> That's not what is documented here: > >> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Sponsoring > > > > AFAICS, that page says nothing about whom to contact to get on the > > list, so I contacted a couple of the members on the committee. It > > seemed logical... > > Sorry - I meant that the process to get on the list was defined as a > vote by the four people on the list. Not that the method of contacting > them was well-defined. :) > > Perhaps our sponsorship committee could clarify this process a bit. (cc'd) If I could make some suggestions. 1) On the Sponsors page have something like the Report a Bug link; instead Report a Sponsorship. 2) Create a Wiki page to layout the sponsorships for preview. 3) Have Sponsorship committee review. 4) Update the Sponsors page. And yes I am willing to help with this. > > -selena -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@gmail.com
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > All, > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors > Therefore, I would like to simplify this page into two categories: Major > Sponsors and Sponsors. > > Major Sponsors would be companies who have supported one or more > full-time contributors, or the equivalent, for more than one year. +1 -selena -- http://chesnok.com
On May 12, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Major Sponsors would be companies who have supported one or more > full-time contributors, or the equivalent, for more than one year. > > Sponsors would be any company who has consistently contributed > substantial developer time and/or money to PostgreSQL (i.e. several > $thousand) for a year or more. A company which does *only* event > sponsorships wouldn't count, because they already get credit through the > event. I like this idea, though I want to propose that Postgres consulting companies be segregated, for two reasons: 1: It makes it easier for people who want to find consulting companies to find them (yes, I know they can look at the supportpage, but wouldn't you prefer to do business with a company that directly supports the community? :) 2: It would point out companies that support Postgres even though it's not their primary business focus. There are far morecompanies that use Postgres than companies that offer support; if we can make companies that use Postgres realized thatthey have a way to directly help the project then hopefully more of that will happen. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net