Thread: Policy query: sponsor endorsements
All, For the 9.4 release press kit, I'm planning to have quotes/endorsements from several sponsors of the work which went into 9.4, particularly JSONB and BDR/LC. Part of this is making sure we fulfill some sponsor credit requirements (i.e. EngineYard), and partly it's to show corporate support. My concern is that obviously we can't take endorsements from every company with staff who did signifcant work on 9.4., or the press kit would be 50 pages long. It is going to be a mess if I'm just featuring the JSONB, and BDR/LC sponsors? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > All, > > For the 9.4 release press kit, I'm planning to have quotes/endorsements > from several sponsors of the work which went into 9.4, particularly > JSONB and BDR/LC. Part of this is making sure we fulfill some sponsor > credit requirements (i.e. EngineYard), I'm sorry, but who's requirements? Certainly postgresql.org did not sign any deals requiring such things? And if it was just individual developers, they *really* should check such things *before* entering into such a deal, no? > and partly it's to show corporate support. That is, of course, important. > My concern is that obviously we can't take endorsements from every > company with staff who did signifcant work on 9.4., or the press kit > would be 50 pages long. It is going to be a mess if I'm just featuring > the JSONB, and BDR/LC sponsors? Yes. What about the companies that invest full or part time staff all the time. Do they get mentioned in every press kit? If not, why is their work less important? I think it's better to stick to the previous way of having "users" endorse the feature itself. The people who developed it are credited in the release notes, not the press kit. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 08/27/2014 12:02 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I think it's better to stick to the previous way of having "users" > endorse the feature itself. The people who developed it are credited > in the release notes, not the press kit. Well, we'd already told Oleg & Teodor that the release notes weren't the appropriate place to credit *sponsors*. And I feel that the press kit is more appropriate than the release notes for this purpose. Do note that I'm talking about the extended press kit (i.e. the web page), not the release announcement. We do want to "reward" companies for supporting PostgreSQL development, and have in the past noted which companies sponsored certain features. Otherwise this source of development funding will dry up, and it's easy enough for us to give a company a few lines on a web page. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 08/27/2014 12:02 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> I think it's better to stick to the previous way of having "users" >> endorse the feature itself. The people who developed it are credited >> in the release notes, not the press kit. > > Well, we'd already told Oleg & Teodor that the release notes weren't the > appropriate place to credit *sponsors*. And I feel that the press kit > is more appropriate than the release notes for this purpose. Do note > that I'm talking about the extended press kit (i.e. the web page), not > the release announcement. True,the release notes are not for sponsors. The fact that EY in this case has had their logo and endorsement posted on every conference presentation the people they sponsored have made is not enough? > We do want to "reward" companies for supporting PostgreSQL development, > and have in the past noted which companies sponsored certain features. > Otherwise this source of development funding will dry up, and it's easy > enough for us to give a company a few lines on a web page. We have? Can you give an example, so we have something to compare to? I agree it's easy, but you need to figure out exactly who deserves to be there. How man lines are 2ndquadrant going to get? Salesforce? EDB? VMWare? There needs to be some sort of criteria. Maybe something like "those things that are listed as major enhancements" would work for that - as long as that doesn't send us spiraling into a discussion about what gets to be listed under major enhancements... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
> The fact that EY in this case has had their logo and endorsement > posted on every conference presentation the people they sponsored have > made is not enough? I'm not in a position to say. Seems pretty good to me. On the other hand, I do have a quote from an EY person ... >> We do want to "reward" companies for supporting PostgreSQL development, >> and have in the past noted which companies sponsored certain features. >> Otherwise this source of development funding will dry up, and it's easy >> enough for us to give a company a few lines on a web page. > > We have? Can you give an example, so we have something to compare to? Yah, I'll dig. > I agree it's easy, but you need to figure out exactly who deserves to > be there. How man lines are 2ndquadrant going to get? Salesforce? EDB? > VMWare? There needs to be some sort of criteria. > > Maybe something like "those things that are listed as major > enhancements" would work for that - as long as that doesn't send us > spiraling into a discussion about what gets to be listed under major > enhancements... Agreed. Probably this also means we need to get to overhauling the sponsors page post-haste. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Aug 27, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
The fact that EY in this case has had their logo and endorsement
posted on every conference presentation the people they sponsored have
made is not enough?
I'm not in a position to say. Seems pretty good to me. On the other
hand, I do have a quote from an EY person ...We do want to "reward" companies for supporting PostgreSQL development,
and have in the past noted which companies sponsored certain features.
Otherwise this source of development funding will dry up, and it's easy
enough for us to give a company a few lines on a web page.
We have? Can you give an example, so we have something to compare to?
Yah, I'll dig.I agree it's easy, but you need to figure out exactly who deserves to
be there. How man lines are 2ndquadrant going to get? Salesforce? EDB?
VMWare? There needs to be some sort of criteria.
Maybe something like "those things that are listed as major
enhancements" would work for that - as long as that doesn't send us
spiraling into a discussion about what gets to be listed under major
enhancements...
Agreed.
Probably this also means we need to get to overhauling the sponsors page
post-haste.
Well, this can be in effect now (https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NewDraftSponsorCriteria) so we should do the initial reorganization.
It looks like we can organize it directly from the web admin panel, so if there are no objections, I can handle the re-org fairly quickly, and we can go from there.
Jonathan
> > We do want to "reward" companies for supporting PostgreSQL development, > and have in the past noted which companies sponsored certain features. > Otherwise this source of development funding will dry up, and it's easy > enough for us to give a company a few lines on a web page. > Hey, I'm not answering this question and I may be too naïve again but why don't we just let those companies communicate with their own PR teams, and emphasize on the features they've sponsored/developed ? It seems to me that when we'll launch the 9.4 Press Kit, if multiple companies would join the party and publish their own PR, with a focus on what they think is important, it would create a positive mass-effect. Sure this is not the way regular PR are made. Traditional editors have 1 single signal and a big expensive PR company to broadcast it everywhere. Obviously we don't have that kind of fire power. So going with multiple companies launching different flavored announces is a nice way to show that we're different that other RDBMS, not only from a code perspective, but also in the way we work together. Medium is the message, as they say. This might be confusing for some journalist but I'm pretty sure that if on the same day someone receives the several 9.4 announces from say, Red Hat, EnterpriseDB, Engine Yard, Heroku, 2ndQuadrant and VMware, with a different focus in each message, he/she will think that this is a big deal. At least it would have a better impact that the pg.org regional contacts alone, trying to do their best with the limited time, knowledge and energy they have. For me instead going on an endless thread to choose which companies the 9.4 press kit should endorse officially, I think we should push the various PostgreSQL sponsors PR teams to collaborate on certain things, just like these companies collaborate at the code level. I realize what a culture change it is but I think it's worth trying. At least making these people talk to each other would be a nice first step. Otherwise I think we're gonna be stuck in this sterile corporate vs. community opposition for a long time. -- Damien Clochard