Thread: Re: [HACKERS] SAP and MySQL ... [and Benchmark]

Ron Mayer wrote:
> Jan wrote [to hackers, but I moved it to general (sorry in advance if that
> was bad)]:
>>
>>SAP failed on the attempt to open source ADABAS even more miserably than
>>Borland with Interbase. Now it looks like they found someone who said
>>"we know open source, we can do that, oh pick me, me, me, pick meeeeee!"
>
> I wonder if the SAP deal is related to the $19.5 million round of
> venture capital MySQL AB just raised:
>
>   http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/06/02/daily19.html
>   "2003-06-04...

The IMHO important quote in that article is

     He [Marten Mickos] added, "With the funds from Benchmark and others,
     we can ramp up our commercial business while continuing to support
     the open source community."

Pretty clear to me that the open source track looses importance in their
business model - if it ever was of any importance other than being a
marketing gag. They want to ramp up the commercial business.

I wonder what happens with all those big companies they list as current
MySQL users when they pull out their only DB server know how to develop
this new MySQL DB. SAP's declared intention is to get something that
supports their product line ... so it's gotta be incompatible with the
existing MySQL. Or is it going to be that Monty continues MySQL and they
ramp up a new team for the new DB?

These big customers have paid license fees for commercial use. I don't
know, but I wouldn't want to be in that line of fire when MySQL
announces that support for the existing technology will be discontinued
and porting to MyNewSQL is strongly recommended.


Jan

>
>    Open-source data firm raises $19.5 million
>
>    A Swedish open-source database developer with U.S. offices in Seattle
>    has raised $19.5 million to continue its advance into the database
> market.
>
>    MySQL AB said its backers were led by Benchmark Capital of Palo Alto,
> Calif.,...
>   "
>
> Could be the investors wanted to see closer business ties, and SAP's a nice
> big business to have close ties to.
>
>    Ron



--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

Hello Jan,

Friday, June 6, 2003, 9:12:24 PM, you wrote:

> I think Open Source means more than that. It means especially Open for
> ideas, open for input. Open for people and companies to join the team,
> contribute and take part in the decision making. That all is totally
> impossible in the MySQL project. Not because it could not be done, but
> because the owner of the commercial product MySQL does not want it to
> happen.

Although this is an entirely valid opinion. I don't 100% agree with
this point of view.

Just because a project is open source (OS), doesn't mean that all and
sundry should have an input.

OS projects should be open to offers of contribution, but projects should
reserve the right to reject that contribution.

This seems, IMO, to be a plague in OS development. I clique of
developers (regardless of how talented) or an individual, completely
wrecks a project because they want to ensure their ideas are adopted.

OS projects and closed source projects (or any other project for
this matter) needs clear leadership, with someone willing to say yes
or NO.

Open source development is littered with shouting matches leading to
forks, and general fcuk ups. This sometimes works for the better,
unfortunately, most times it doesn't.

I'm painting a pretty black picture and possibly giving you the opinion
that I do not approve of OS development...nothing could be further from
the truth. But I do think we need to get away from the *revisionism*
((c)Mao Tse-tung) that you seem to have fallen into.

Please do not take offence at any comment I make - none are intended.
Things are starting to get interesting... ;-)


--
Best regards,
 Ian

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Ian Linwood wrote:

> Hello Jan,
>
> Friday, June 6, 2003, 9:12:24 PM, you wrote:
>
> > I think Open Source means more than that. It means especially Open for
> > ideas, open for input. Open for people and companies to join the team,
> > contribute and take part in the decision making. That all is totally
> > impossible in the MySQL project. Not because it could not be done, but
> > because the owner of the commercial product MySQL does not want it to
> > happen.
>
> Although this is an entirely valid opinion. I don't 100% agree with
> this point of view.
>
> Just because a project is open source (OS), doesn't mean that all and
> sundry should have an input.

While I agree with you on this point, the real issue behind MySQL is that
the native connection library is GPL (not LGPL) so that IF you link your
software to MySQL's connection library, you either have to GPL your own
commercial code or buy a commercial MySQL license.

In order to maintain this setup, MySQL requires that anyone who donates
code sign over their copyright to MySQL AB.  MySQL AB then uses that same
code someone else wrote to make money by selling the commercial licensed
version.

So, in my opinion, MySQL is GPL in name only.  Until someone else forks it
and maintains it as a pure GPL product, I'll avoid it.

I suggest anyone who's interested in how to organize an open source
project take a look at FreeBSD. It's the best run project I know of,
especially considering there's basically no corporate sponsorship.

In a nutshell, there's a community of a few hundred developers who have
commit access. Each year, they elect an executive board that oversees
the project as a whole. This does a great job of ensuring that no single
person can bully the project around, and it results it code that's much
better thought out, imho.

Hopefully someday pgsql will have enough developers to warrant such a
model. :)

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:22:08PM +0100, Ian Linwood wrote:
> Hello Jan,
>
> Friday, June 6, 2003, 9:12:24 PM, you wrote:
>
> > I think Open Source means more than that. It means especially Open for
> > ideas, open for input. Open for people and companies to join the team,
> > contribute and take part in the decision making. That all is totally
> > impossible in the MySQL project. Not because it could not be done, but
> > because the owner of the commercial product MySQL does not want it to
> > happen.
>
> Although this is an entirely valid opinion. I don't 100% agree with
> this point of view.
>
> Just because a project is open source (OS), doesn't mean that all and
> sundry should have an input.
>
> OS projects should be open to offers of contribution, but projects should
> reserve the right to reject that contribution.
>
> This seems, IMO, to be a plague in OS development. I clique of
> developers (regardless of how talented) or an individual, completely
> wrecks a project because they want to ensure their ideas are adopted.
>
> OS projects and closed source projects (or any other project for
> this matter) needs clear leadership, with someone willing to say yes
> or NO.
>
> Open source development is littered with shouting matches leading to
> forks, and general fcuk ups. This sometimes works for the better,
> unfortunately, most times it doesn't.
>
> I'm painting a pretty black picture and possibly giving you the opinion
> that I do not approve of OS development...nothing could be further from
> the truth. But I do think we need to get away from the *revisionism*
> ((c)Mao Tse-tung) that you seem to have fallen into.
>
> Please do not take offence at any comment I make - none are intended.
> Things are starting to get interesting... ;-)
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  Ian
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

--
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!)                    jim@nasby.net
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.

I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
has served us well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> I suggest anyone who's interested in how to organize an open source
> project take a look at FreeBSD. It's the best run project I know of,
> especially considering there's basically no corporate sponsorship.
>
> In a nutshell, there's a community of a few hundred developers who have
> commit access. Each year, they elect an executive board that oversees
> the project as a whole. This does a great job of ensuring that no single
> person can bully the project around, and it results it code that's much
> better thought out, imho.
>
> Hopefully someday pgsql will have enough developers to warrant such a
> model. :)
>
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:22:08PM +0100, Ian Linwood wrote:
> > Hello Jan,
> >
> > Friday, June 6, 2003, 9:12:24 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > > I think Open Source means more than that. It means especially Open for
> > > ideas, open for input. Open for people and companies to join the team,
> > > contribute and take part in the decision making. That all is totally
> > > impossible in the MySQL project. Not because it could not be done, but
> > > because the owner of the commercial product MySQL does not want it to
> > > happen.
> >
> > Although this is an entirely valid opinion. I don't 100% agree with
> > this point of view.
> >
> > Just because a project is open source (OS), doesn't mean that all and
> > sundry should have an input.
> >
> > OS projects should be open to offers of contribution, but projects should
> > reserve the right to reject that contribution.
> >
> > This seems, IMO, to be a plague in OS development. I clique of
> > developers (regardless of how talented) or an individual, completely
> > wrecks a project because they want to ensure their ideas are adopted.
> >
> > OS projects and closed source projects (or any other project for
> > this matter) needs clear leadership, with someone willing to say yes
> > or NO.
> >
> > Open source development is littered with shouting matches leading to
> > forks, and general fcuk ups. This sometimes works for the better,
> > unfortunately, most times it doesn't.
> >
> > I'm painting a pretty black picture and possibly giving you the opinion
> > that I do not approve of OS development...nothing could be further from
> > the truth. But I do think we need to get away from the *revisionism*
> > ((c)Mao Tse-tung) that you seem to have fallen into.
> >
> > Please do not take offence at any comment I make - none are intended.
> > Things are starting to get interesting... ;-)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >  Ian
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org
> >
>
> --
> Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!)                    jim@nasby.net
> Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
> Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
>
> Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
> Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
> FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--
  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

Ian Linwood wrote:
> Hello Jan,
>
> Friday, June 6, 2003, 9:12:24 PM, you wrote:
>
>> I think Open Source means more than that. It means especially Open for
>> ideas, open for input. Open for people and companies to join the team,
>> contribute and take part in the decision making. That all is totally
>> impossible in the MySQL project. Not because it could not be done, but
>> because the owner of the commercial product MySQL does not want it to
>> happen.
>
> Although this is an entirely valid opinion. I don't 100% agree with
> this point of view.
>
> Just because a project is open source (OS), doesn't mean that all and
> sundry should have an input.
>
> OS projects should be open to offers of contribution, but projects should
> reserve the right to reject that contribution.

Hell no, I didn't mean that! We sure reserve the right to reject
contributions and make frequently use of that right.

That the PostgreSQL CORE team does not "as such" take strong positions
in technical questions should not indicate a lack of leadership. I think
for the current size of the project and the very mature and civilized
culture of the actual development community, this form of rather passive
leadership is a good fit.


Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.
>
> I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
> stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
> has served us well.

Or not.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 12:24, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.
>
> I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
> stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
> has served us well.
>

I don't know, I've often thought that a more active core team could have
helped the project grow more in areas not related to the source code.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

On Thursday 12 June 2003 08:40, Justin Clift wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.
> >
> > I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
> > stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
> > has served us well.

> Or not.

Each Open Source project has its own personality.  I often use PostgreSQL as
an example of a well-run OSS project; I do believe that the current model is
working well.

I understand some of the concerns with the current model.  However, this
database started as a research project, was picked up by a couple of students
and SQLified, then was picked up by a core group of its users who were
interested in making it better.  And make it better they did!  (with help of
course).  Prolific developers have since been added to the core group.

This model has gotten us this far very well; and I don't think a fundamental
change in it is necessary to take us to the next level.

Or, to put it another way, we have a minimalistic 'government'.  Some people
like that; others do not.  Just as in the 'real world'.  The user base,
moderated by core, makes the decisions -- I believe that is as it should be.
Somewhat like cadmium in a nuclear reactor. (:-))  Core prevents a meltdown,
and lets the reactor hum at a nice pace.

We want marketing?  The someone steps up to the plate and markets (which has
happened).  We want funding?  Then some of our users need to step up to the
plate and do some funding.  (which has also happened).

To borrow from another projects model, no one is asking Linus Torvalds to
accept a voted-in core team for the Linux kernel.  He is also one who governs
as little as possible.

We're not commercial software; why must we act like commercial software?
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

I'm not THAT familiar with recent developer history, community, or model for Postgres. I do see two individual's names
aLOT on this listserve, and they really contribute a lot and guide a lot of us. 

Bruce is one, and Tom Lane is the other. I think that Postgres's inertia is vulnerable to one of them dying. Hopefully
youtwo guys, that is a long ways away! But I know of a OSS PHP project where the main guy died young in a motorcycle
accident,and the last I heard, there was little progress in the project in a year's time; The project might be dead. 

I think that the two main guys should keep a list of their references they use (DB theory, architecture planning,
differentoptimizer theory, etc.), the roadmap for next 1-2 years, anything else that would help the group 'if a bus hit
them'.

But, like I said, I'm not too familiar with the development community itself. I'm just relating to the trend I see here
inthe general list. 

Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 12 June 2003 08:40, Justin Clift wrote:
>
>>Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>>I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.
>>>
>>>I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
>>>stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
>>>has served us well.
>
>
>>Or not.
>
>
> Each Open Source project has its own personality.  I often use PostgreSQL as
> an example of a well-run OSS project; I do believe that the current model is
> working well.
>
> I understand some of the concerns with the current model.  However, this
> database started as a research project, was picked up by a couple of students
> and SQLified, then was picked up by a core group of its users who were
> interested in making it better.  And make it better they did!  (with help of
> course).  Prolific developers have since been added to the core group.
>
> This model has gotten us this far very well; and I don't think a fundamental
> change in it is necessary to take us to the next level.
>
> Or, to put it another way, we have a minimalistic 'government'.  Some people
> like that; others do not.  Just as in the 'real world'.  The user base,
> moderated by core, makes the decisions -- I believe that is as it should be.
> Somewhat like cadmium in a nuclear reactor. (:-))  Core prevents a meltdown,
> and lets the reactor hum at a nice pace.
>
> We want marketing?  The someone steps up to the plate and markets (which has
> happened).  We want funding?  Then some of our users need to step up to the
> plate and do some funding.  (which has also happened).
>
> To borrow from another projects model, no one is asking Linus Torvalds to
> accept a voted-in core team for the Linux kernel.  He is also one who governs
> as little as possible.
>
> We're not commercial software; why must we act like commercial software?

Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 12 June 2003 08:40, Justin Clift wrote:
>
>>Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>>I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.
>>>
>>>I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
>>>stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
>>>has served us well.
>
>
>>Or not.
>
>
> Each Open Source project has its own personality.  I often use PostgreSQL as
> an example of a well-run OSS project; I do believe that the current model is
> working well.

I strongly disagree.  The current model is stable, and thus far it has let us
putter along without any major community disputes that may potentially divide
the community.

However, it's also had a chilling effect on our community, not letting us
drive the expansion nor give the right attention to the non-code parts of
PostgreSQL that are important.

If we had some kind of voting system in place for core, then we would likely
have a more active and larger community - generated by the people at the top
being more involved, enthusiastic, energetic, and giving solid leadership
and direction.

Getting involvement in this from the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing group would
be extremely beneficial as well, as it's presently lacking vision, coherent
plans and goals to bring the vision to reality, and consistent effort by all but
a handful of members.  Good leadership + direction would be welcome there and
should be included in the PostgreSQL "core" group as well.

<snip>
> We want marketing?  The someone steps up to the plate and markets (which has
> happened).

It's not that we need marketing... we need *consistent* marketing.


 > We want funding?  Then some of our users need to step up to the
> plate and do some funding.  (which has also happened).

Ha!  I've seen more funding and offers of assistance that made sense
_rejected_ by members of the core group - for reasons beneficial to them
privately even though the PostgreSQL Community would have benefited -
than I have seen accepted.

However, your right in that this also demonstates we have a fairly tight-knit
Community that will help one another out when needed, and that's all good.

:-)


> To borrow from another projects model, no one is asking Linus Torvalds to
> accept a voted-in core team for the Linux kernel.  He is also one who governs
> as little as possible.

Through delegation.  :)


> We're not commercial software; why must we act like commercial software?

People seem to get this confused a lot.  Why are you associating a successful
method of organising resources (time, people, etc) with only commercial software
projects?  _Any_ project that grows to various size points and wants to maintain
it or keep on expanding will have to figure out ways of co-ordinating their
time, efforts, communications, etc, that work for them appropriately at all of
these size points.  That's just common sense.

Commercial Software projects and companies often use "models of organisation" that
are proven to work, and although neither they nor us are limited to just those
models, we don't need to write them off as being "not good enough" just because
we don't like the other places that have employed them.

Hope that makes sense, I'm getting really tired about now.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Quite a storm I managed to brew up here... :)

I wasn't trying to insinuate that there was anything wrong with pgsql as
an organization of contributors. I was only suggesting that anyone who
wants to look at a sucessfully run very large open source project take a
look at FBSD.

As others have mentioned, there are probably improvements that could be
made, but then again, there almost always are. Is it worth the
disruption that the change would cause is a better question to ask.
--
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!)                    jim@nasby.net
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

On Thursday 12 June 2003 13:29, Justin Clift wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > Each Open Source project has its own personality.  I often use PostgreSQL
> > as an example of a well-run OSS project; I do believe that the current
> > model is working well.

> I strongly disagree.  The current model is stable, and thus far it has let
> us putter along without any major community disputes that may potentially
> divide the community.

Stable is good.

> However, it's also had a chilling effect on our community, not letting us
> drive the expansion nor give the right attention to the non-code parts of
> PostgreSQL that are important.

Who is 'us'?

> If we had some kind of voting system in place for core, then we would
> likely have a more active and larger community - generated by the people at
> the top being more involved, enthusiastic, energetic, and giving solid
> leadership and direction.

I really can't see how the 'people at the top' aren't already the most
involved developers in the group.  This project is run by the developers; and
that is in my mind a good thing.  'He who codes the most gets to determine
the code.'

> Getting involvement in this from the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing
> group would be extremely beneficial as well, as it's presently lacking
> vision, coherent plans and goals to bring the vision to reality, and
> consistent effort by all but a handful of members.  Good leadership +
> direction would be welcome there and should be included in the PostgreSQL
> "core" group as well.

Is Marc or Bruce not a part of the 'Advocacy and Marketing Group' already?
Let the Advocacy and Marketing group make their suggestions in the open forum
of Hackers and see what is thought of it, just like everything else that has
been done to this database.  There are five people on core; their skilset is
varied enough to where any single point of view isn't dominant.  The who
Hackers group drives the development.

> It's not that we need marketing... we need *consistent* marketing.

If a group of developers can make consistent advances in technology without a
formal structure, why can't a group of marketers do the same?  The process is
well known and fully documented in the archives of the hackers mailing list:
you want a feature in PostgreSQL?  The first hurdle is to get it on the TODO.
That's a Bruce item, and one that only happens with Hackers (and core)
consensus.  The second hurdle is to get a developer with the chops to care
about it enough to make it happen.  If I had the chops to do it, seamless
upgrading would already be done.  No one with the chops cares enough about it
to make it happen.  'Scratch the itch' the Free Software Mantra states.  The
key is getting someone to itch for it that can successfully scratch it.  You
must market to the hackers as much as to the users.

> Ha!  I've seen more funding and offers of assistance that made sense
> _rejected_ by members of the core group - for reasons beneficial to them
> privately even though the PostgreSQL Community would have benefited -
> than I have seen accepted.

Made sense to whom?

> However, your right in that this also demonstates we have a fairly
> tight-knit Community that will help one another out when needed, and that's
> all good.

Yes, we do have a tight community for the most part.

> > To borrow from another projects model, no one is asking Linus Torvalds to
> > accept a voted-in core team for the Linux kernel.  He is also one who
> > governs as little as possible.

> Through delegation.  :)

If you'll note, core developers aren't the ones with exclusive commit
privilege to CVS.  Many developers have commit privileges.  Many things are
already delegated where it makes sense to do so.  Such as the RPMs.

> People seem to get this confused a lot.  Why are you associating a
> successful method of organising resources (time, people, etc) with only
> commercial software projects?  _Any_ project that grows to various size
> points and wants to maintain it or keep on expanding will have to figure
> out ways of co-ordinating their time, efforts, communications, etc, that
> work for them appropriately at all of these size points.  That's just
> common sense.

Common sense is relative.  Why must a project expand to be successful?  Why is
more always better?  We need more good developers, no doubt.  However, take a
look at how many developers we already have.  Maybe we are already
coordinating well.

Sure, we can always improve.  However, I disagree that we must look to a
different system to do it.

> Commercial Software projects and companies often use "models of
> organisation" that are proven to work, and although neither they nor us are
> limited to just those models, we don't need to write them off as being "not
> good enough" just because we don't like the other places that have employed
> them.

But you miss an important point.  We are all scratching an itch.  If this
ceases to be fun and becomes more like work those of us who are doing this
totally volunteer may just quit.  PostgreSQL is a hobby for me; while it
makes sense for me in that I use PostgreSQL, I thoroughly enjoy knowing that
what I am doing is helping people.  The current organization makes it easy
for people to jump in (as long as they make the attempt to understand how we
do things and the areas where we will not likely change (like the license --
it's BSD and that's that!) and try to work with us).

You are one who jumped in with some documentation (techdocs in particular);
what was your experience in getting started?  It's very informal; I like
that.

So I believe that the current 'by invitation only' core group is a good way
for this project to continue.  Feel free to disagree; choice is good.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:

> Is Marc or Bruce not a part of the 'Advocacy and Marketing Group'
> already?  Let the Advocacy and Marketing group make their suggestions in
> the open forum of Hackers and see what is thought of it, just like
> everything else that has been done to this database.  There are five
> people on core; their skilset is varied enough to where any single point
> of view isn't dominant.  The who Hackers group drives the development.

Note that Justin is of the impression that "core" is a secret cabal :)
We've tried to educate him otherwis ... I think the last "really secret"
thing that we discussed on core was Greatbridge coming onto the scene,
everything else gets discussed on -hackers ... I really wish the Advocacy
guys would use the -advocacy list a bit more, mind you, since Justin is
right, there is alot of good that could be done, but that list has been
quite quiet ...

> > Ha!  I've seen more funding and offers of assistance that made sense
> > _rejected_ by members of the core group - for reasons beneficial to them
> > privately even though the PostgreSQL Community would have benefited -
> > than I have seen accepted.
>
> Made sense to whom?

Bruce? Tom? Have I missed some core discussions?  Justin, can you
enlighten us on these ... ? *scratch head*  Since I do have available to
myself the archives of core, I'd love to go digging back if you have some
examples?

Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> On Thursday 12 June 2003 13:29, Justin Clift wrote:
>> Getting involvement in this from the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing
>> group would be extremely beneficial as well, as it's presently lacking
>> vision, coherent plans and goals to bring the vision to reality, and
>> consistent effort by all but a handful of members.  Good leadership +
>> direction would be welcome there and should be included in the PostgreSQL
>> "core" group as well.

> Is Marc or Bruce not a part of the 'Advocacy and Marketing Group' already?
> Let the Advocacy and Marketing group make their suggestions in the open forum
> of Hackers and see what is thought of it, just like everything else that has
> been done to this database.  There are five people on core; their skilset is
> varied enough to where any single point of view isn't dominant.

Actually I think Justin has a point: the core team consists of hackers.
I believe we do a decent job of leading technical development of
Postgres, but we're not well-qualified to lead marketing efforts.

It doesn't, however, follow that adding some marketing experts to core
would improve matters.  I think it'd just fragment our attention.
There's an advocacy/marketing group in place already, and it seems to
me they should just take the ball and run with it.  They don't need
core's approval to do the things they can do well.

I wouldn't mind seeing a "core marketing" team evolve to parallel the
existing "core technical" team.  But it won't happen by vote.  To the
extent that the hackers community listens to core on technical issues,
it's because we've achieved respect by hard work.  The core marketing
team has to step forward and win their credibility the same way.

            regards, tom lane

On Friday 13 June 2003 01:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Actually I think Justin has a point: the core team consists of hackers.
> I believe we do a decent job of leading technical development of
> Postgres, but we're not well-qualified to lead marketing efforts.

> To the
> extent that the hackers community listens to core on technical issues,
> it's because we've achieved respect by hard work.  The core marketing
> team has to step forward and win their credibility the same way.

This hits the nail on the head, something you're usually pretty good at doing,
Tom.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Tom Lane wrote:
<snip>
> I wouldn't mind seeing a "core marketing" team evolve to parallel the
> existing "core technical" team.  But it won't happen by vote.  To the
> extent that the hackers community listens to core on technical issues,
> it's because we've achieved respect by hard work.  The core marketing
> team has to step forward and win their credibility the same way.

Hmmm, interesting idea, and very well put.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


>             regards, tom lane


--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:53:36PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
...
> Common sense is relative.  Why must a project expand to be successful?  Why is
> more always better?  We need more good developers, no doubt.  However, take a
> look at how many developers we already have.  Maybe we are already
> coordinating well.

.. and I was surprised to see essentially the same "more isn't better" as
one of the reasons for the Mozilla Firebird project:

http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/browser/README.html

(I like the quality over quantity point of view too)

Cheers,

Patrick

On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 01:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> > On Thursday 12 June 2003 13:29, Justin Clift wrote:
> >> Getting involvement in this from the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing
> >> group would be extremely beneficial as well, as it's presently lacking
> >> vision, coherent plans and goals to bring the vision to reality, and
> >> consistent effort by all but a handful of members.  Good leadership +
> >> direction would be welcome there and should be included in the PostgreSQL
> >> "core" group as well.
>
> > Is Marc or Bruce not a part of the 'Advocacy and Marketing Group' already?
> > Let the Advocacy and Marketing group make their suggestions in the open forum
> > of Hackers and see what is thought of it, just like everything else that has
> > been done to this database.  There are five people on core; their skilset is
> > varied enough to where any single point of view isn't dominant.
>
> Actually I think Justin has a point: the core team consists of hackers.
> I believe we do a decent job of leading technical development of
> Postgres, but we're not well-qualified to lead marketing efforts.
>

Tom, you may not be qualified, but you have an uncanny ability to give
sage advice ;-)

> It doesn't, however, follow that adding some marketing experts to core
> would improve matters.  I think it'd just fragment our attention.
> There's an advocacy/marketing group in place already, and it seems to
> me they should just take the ball and run with it.  They don't need
> core's approval to do the things they can do well.
>

But we do need core's approval to add legitimacy to our efforts,
especially with some of the "marketing is bad" folks that live on
-hackers.  We also need core's approval to get infrastructure changes
put into place to help our efforts.

> I wouldn't mind seeing a "core marketing" team evolve to parallel the
> existing "core technical" team.  But it won't happen by vote.  To the
> extent that the hackers community listens to core on technical issues,
> it's because we've achieved respect by hard work.  The core marketing
> team has to step forward and win their credibility the same way.
>

This overlooks the fact that you can't earn credibility with some of our
community unless you hack on the back-end. The uproar over the 7.3 press
release was a fine example of what happens when the "advocacy" guys try
to make a change to something non-technical that the "technical" guys
don't approve of.


Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 01:08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wouldn't mind seeing a "core marketing" team evolve to parallel the
>> existing "core technical" team.

> This overlooks the fact that you can't earn credibility with some of our
> community unless you hack on the back-end.

That is the standard way to earn *technical* credibility in this
community, sure.  What I'm suggesting is that credibility in the
advocacy/marketing area is a different currency.  I still think
you have to earn the respect of your peers by hard work, but exactly
what that work is is quite different.  Being a geek with no clue
about marketing, I don't actually know how one would go about building
a reputation in this area.  I do know that having the technical core
team bless your efforts won't create any credibility of that kind,
because we have none to give.

> The uproar over the 7.3 press
> release was a fine example of what happens when the "advocacy" guys try
> to make a change to something non-technical that the "technical" guys
> don't approve of.

AFAIR people didn't have a problem with the press release as press
release, they just said that what *they* wanted to read was a more
technically oriented document, and they were bemoaning the lack of one.

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes: 

On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 01:08, Tom Lane wrote:   

I wouldn't mind seeing a "core marketing" team evolve to parallel the
existing "core technical" team.     

This overlooks the fact that you can't earn credibility with some of our
community unless you hack on the back-end.   

That is the standard way to earn *technical* credibility in this
community, sure.  What I'm suggesting is that credibility in the
advocacy/marketing area is a different currency.  I still think
you have to earn the respect of your peers by hard work, but exactly
what that work is is quite different.  Being a geek with no clue
about marketing, I don't actually know how one would go about building
a reputation in this area.  I do know that having the technical core
team bless your efforts won't create any credibility of that kind,
because we have none to give.

This idea of a core marketing team is great, in my opinion.
So there will be some people realy focused on the press releases, case studies, advocacy site, events and such things, that are realy important and make the comunity stronger. The people working in this area would build their reputation based on this.
There's a interesting article on InfoWorld (http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/05/23/21OPconnection_1.html) that says: "A deeper examination of PostgresSQL suggests that it could be vastly under-hyped."

AFAIR people didn't have a problem with the press release as press
release, they just said that what *they* wanted to read was a more
technically oriented document, and they were bemoaning the lack of one. 

Maybe the press release should have a link to a more technical doc.
IMHO the press release orientation was very good.

My regards,

-- 
Diogo de Oliveira Biazus
diogo@ikono.com.br
Ikono Sistemas e Automação
http://www.ikono.com.br

On Friday 13 June 2003 10:33, Robert Treat wrote:
> This overlooks the fact that you can't earn credibility with some of our
> community unless you hack on the back-end. The uproar over the 7.3 press
> release was a fine example of what happens when the "advocacy" guys try
> to make a change to something non-technical that the "technical" guys
> don't approve of.

Well, a marketing team doesn't need credibility with the hackers as much as it
needs credibility with the users.  Along that bent, the user-grade press
release should not appear on Hackers.  Rather, a technical release-notes is
needed there, concocted by core.

In order to be credible, one must neither underhype nor overhype -- but there
is a correct mix of hype in there, because non-tech people love to be wowed.

And then we technical people need to let the marketing people do their thing,
with core keeping the marketing people well-informed of what the release will
actually do.

So I see a core marketing team having a least one person who, if not an active
developer, actively follows hackers and understands the technical details of
the coming release.  That person needs to have enough development chops to
competently install and test a beta to see where it's going.  That person
then needs to be able to translate the jargon into userspeak, and explain the
draft userspeak document to the rest of the marketing core, who can then
translate that into pressspeak for the press release.

The hardest part of this is the coordination of the effort -- first, making
sure the timing is correct, and second making sure the facts are straight.
This person will need to have a thick skin, because that position will get
complaints from hacker and marketer alike.

And the developers who are not marketers need to let them do the job.  If you
don't want the marketer to interfere with development, then don't interfere
with marketing.  But the two cores will need to closely coordinate.  The
liasons between them will need to be able to work well with both groups.

I prefer the developer-driven style, but I do understand that the typical user
doesn't fully appreciate the fine points of the release notes.  And we CAN do
a better job in communicating with people just how great PostgreSQL really
is.  And that job isn't about facts, it's about impressions.  Impressions are
more stubborn than facts, IME.

The current 'PostgreSQL Weekly News' is a great step in that direction, BTW.
I still remember my first taste of Hackers; I thought that things moved kinda
slow in here (because there never really was any meat on what was going on on
the website).  Boy, was I ever wrong!

Getting the Linux, FreeBSD, and other geek news sites their press release is
just as important, but, that's a different audience who needs a different
press release.  ZDNet and its ilk could get the mainstream release, with only
a link to the homepage.  The geek news gets a meatier press release, with
links to the home page, downloads, and release notes.  And Hackers gets the
release notes.  One size does not fit all.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 12:10, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday 13 June 2003 10:33, Robert Treat wrote:
> > This overlooks the fact that you can't earn credibility with some of our
> > community unless you hack on the back-end. The uproar over the 7.3 press
> > release was a fine example of what happens when the "advocacy" guys try
> > to make a change to something non-technical that the "technical" guys
> > don't approve of.
>
> Well, a marketing team doesn't need credibility with the hackers as much as it
> needs credibility with the users. Along that bent, the user-grade press
> release should not appear on Hackers.  Rather, a technical release-notes is
> needed there, concocted by core.
>
> In order to be credible, one must neither underhype nor overhype -- but there
> is a correct mix of hype in there, because non-tech people love to be wowed.
>
> And then we technical people need to let the marketing people do their thing,
> with core keeping the marketing people well-informed of what the release will
> actually do.
>
> So I see a core marketing team having a least one person who, if not an active
> developer, actively follows hackers and understands the technical details of
> the coming release.  That person needs to have enough development chops to
> competently install and test a beta to see where it's going.  That person
> then needs to be able to translate the jargon into userspeak, and explain the
> draft userspeak document to the rest of the marketing core, who can then
> translate that into pressspeak for the press release.
>
> The hardest part of this is the coordination of the effort -- first, making
> sure the timing is correct, and second making sure the facts are straight.
> This person will need to have a thick skin, because that position will get
> complaints from hacker and marketer alike.
>
> And the developers who are not marketers need to let them do the job.  If you
> don't want the marketer to interfere with development, then don't interfere
> with marketing.  But the two cores will need to closely coordinate.  The
> liasons between them will need to be able to work well with both groups.
>

are people willing to delay releases for marketing purposes? we seem to
be into a nasty habit of release on holidays which means it has taken us
a few days to get all of the websites updated and emails sent out. if we
could get core to support the idea that a release date must get approval
from the advocacy guys before it can be announced that would be helpful.

that's the kind of issue that i see causing problems with the technical
side of the community and i'm not sure any amount of credibility with
the users will help.

> I prefer the developer-driven style, but I do understand that the typical user
> doesn't fully appreciate the fine points of the release notes.  And we CAN do
> a better job in communicating with people just how great PostgreSQL really
> is.  And that job isn't about facts, it's about impressions.  Impressions are
> more stubborn than facts, IME.

:-)

>
> The current 'PostgreSQL Weekly News' is a great step in that direction, BTW.
> I still remember my first taste of Hackers; I thought that things moved kinda
> slow in here (because there never really was any meat on what was going on on
> the website).  Boy, was I ever wrong!
>
> Getting the Linux, FreeBSD, and other geek news sites their press release is
> just as important, but, that's a different audience who needs a different
> press release.  ZDNet and its ilk could get the mainstream release, with only
> a link to the homepage.  The geek news gets a meatier press release, with
> links to the home page, downloads, and release notes.  And Hackers gets the
> release notes.  One size does not fit all.

i think the disconnect here is that in the past all aspects of marketing
postgresql have been made by the technical guys.  now you have a group
of people who want to change the way that things are done and if the new
people's decisions are going to override the previous policies that were
put in place, we need some form acceptance of that and the folks who i
see giving that acceptance is the core group. The press releases fall
into this category, since the current standard is that we don't make
announcements of "point" releases, but the advocacy group is recognizing
that something could be gained from spreading the word to right right
target audiences. Should we just go and do it?  I guess based on Tom's
post we should.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Hello Dennis,

Thursday, June 12, 2003, 5:58:49 PM, you wrote:

> Bruce is one, and Tom Lane is the other. I think that Postgres's inertia is vulnerable to one of them dying.

ROFL
I just about drowned in my Stella when I read this.
You are a cheery chap, aren't you!  ;-)

If we all worried too much about things like this we'd be too busy
making our funeral arrangements on our mobiles to see the bus coming
around the corner!

Sorry to poke fun, but I find it very amusing to watch how this thread
has turned to discussing the deaths of contributors to the PostgreSQL
project.

--
Best regards,
 Ian

It is funny, but I'm an enjiineer, I what if everything!

Ian Linwood wrote:

> Hello Dennis,
>
> Thursday, June 12, 2003, 5:58:49 PM, you wrote:
>
>
>>Bruce is one, and Tom Lane is the other. I think that Postgres's inertia is vulnerable to one of them dying.
>
>
> ROFL
> I just about drowned in my Stella when I read this.
> You are a cheery chap, aren't you!  ;-)
>
> If we all worried too much about things like this we'd be too busy
> making our funeral arrangements on our mobiles to see the bus coming
> around the corner!
>
> Sorry to poke fun, but I find it very amusing to watch how this thread
> has turned to discussing the deaths of contributors to the PostgreSQL
> project.
>

Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> are people willing to delay releases for marketing purposes? we seem to
> be into a nasty habit of release on holidays which means it has taken us
> a few days to get all of the websites updated and emails sent out. if we
> could get core to support the idea that a release date must get approval
> from the advocacy guys before it can be announced that would be helpful.

I don't have a problem with this; I've also thought that we chose odd
release dates without thinking about it.  For point releases it's
perhaps less important, but certainly major release dates ought to be
set with some consideration of how we'll put the word out.

            regards, tom lane

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Robert Treat wrote:

> But we do need core's approval to add legitimacy to our efforts,
> especially with some of the "marketing is bad" folks that live on
> -hackers.  We also need core's approval to get infrastructure changes
> put into place to help our efforts.

Huh?  What infrastructure changes have ever gone through -core?

> This overlooks the fact that you can't earn credibility with some of our
> community unless you hack on the back-end. The uproar over the 7.3 press
> release was a fine example of what happens when the "advocacy" guys try
> to make a change to something non-technical that the "technical" guys
> don't approve of.

Actually, I thought at that time we had agreed to have two seperate press
releases (assuming that that is what you are talking about?) ... one
'marketing driven', and one 'technically driven'?

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Robert Treat wrote:

> are people willing to delay releases for marketing purposes? we seem to
> be into a nasty habit of release on holidays which means it has taken us
> a few days to get all of the websites updated and emails sent out. if we
> could get core to support the idea that a release date must get approval
> from the advocacy guys before it can be announced that would be helpful.

First off, all core does for stuff like this is sets the 'estimated
release date' ... look back through the archives, and I dont' think there
has been a release yet that has been "on time", and the dates have always
been pushed back due to discussions on -hackers ... and even as far as the
estimated release date is concerned, the gist of the discussion on -core
is "should we aim for a <enter date here> release?", to which the answers
are either "I have this one thing I'm working on, can we push it back a
bit?", or, if all is in agreement "sounds great, let's put it to -hackers
just to make sure that someone else doesn't have something they need a few
more days for" ...

So, pushing a release back a few days cause the advocacy folks haven't
been able to finish up a release notice is nothing ...

> i think the disconnect here is that in the past all aspects of marketing
> postgresql have been made by the technical guys.  now you have a group
> of people who want to change the way that things are done and if the new
> people's decisions are going to override the previous policies that were
> put in place, we need some form acceptance of that and the folks who i
> see giving that acceptance is the core group. The press releases fall
> into this category, since the current standard is that we don't make
> announcements of "point" releases, but the advocacy group is recognizing
> that something could be gained from spreading the word to right right
> target audiences. Should we just go and do it?  I guess based on Tom's
> post we should.

I think so too ... but, just curious ... we generally mention something on
-hackers at least a week before we do any point releases ... shouldn't
that be enough time to throw together a press release so that the release
doesn't have to be delayed?  same with major releases, there is such a
long, drawn out beta period before that, where features are frozen ...
shouldn't there be enough time in there to make one helluva powerful press
release?

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> We're not commercial software; why must we act like commercial software?

That's a tag line if ever I've seen one.

On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 17:16, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Robert Treat wrote:
> > i think the disconnect here is that in the past all aspects of marketing
> > postgresql have been made by the technical guys.  now you have a group
> > of people who want to change the way that things are done and if the new
> > people's decisions are going to override the previous policies that were
> > put in place, we need some form acceptance of that and the folks who i
> > see giving that acceptance is the core group. The press releases fall
> > into this category, since the current standard is that we don't make
> > announcements of "point" releases, but the advocacy group is recognizing
> > that something could be gained from spreading the word to right right
> > target audiences. Should we just go and do it?  I guess based on Tom's
> > post we should.
>
> I think so too ... but, just curious ... we generally mention something on
> -hackers at least a week before we do any point releases ... shouldn't
> that be enough time to throw together a press release so that the release
> doesn't have to be delayed?  same with major releases, there is such a
> long, drawn out beta period before that, where features are frozen ...
> shouldn't there be enough time in there to make one helluva powerful press
> release?
>

I don't want to go into a detailed rehash of the releases, but out of
the last few we've had releases that were wrapped and/or packaged and
announcements sent out to the mailing lists and there was either no
mention on the websites, issues with the ftp mirrors, or no press
releases given. I know for 7.3.3 the actual release date got bumped
around enough I felt unsure when it came to reporting the release status
in the weekly news.

Right now I believe there are two "release process" documents floating
around, one by the advocacy group, and one in the cvs.  We'll see how
well they work for the next release.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

OH BABY! You are so right Scott! I guffawed on THAT one!

scott.marlowe wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>>We're not commercial software; why must we act like commercial software?
>
>
> That's a tag line if ever I've seen one.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Robert Treat wrote:

> Right now I believe there are two "release process" documents floating
> around, one by the advocacy group, and one in the cvs.  We'll see how
> well they work for the next release.

'K, well, let's start planning now ... what does it take to get the two
'merged' so that we're all on the same page? :)

> are people willing to delay releases for marketing purposes? we seem to
> be into a nasty habit of release on holidays which means it has taken us
> a few days to get all of the websites updated and emails sent out. if we
> could get core to support the idea that a release date must get approval
> from the advocacy guys before it can be announced that would be helpful.

It is a point to address, but it doesn't have to be a big issue, if both
groups can work together.

IIRC the release dates are accepted with some kind of consensus. This means
that a core advocacy group would have a say.

Also, I don't see that press releases necessarily has to be made at the last
minute. All the features of a major release will be in place weeks before the
release date as there always will be beta testing.

--
Kaare Rasmussen            --Linux, spil,--        Tlf:        3816 2582
Kaki Data                tshirts, merchandize      Fax:        3816 2501
Howitzvej 75               Åben 12.00-18.00        Email: kar@kakidata.dk
2000 Frederiksberg        Lørdag 12.00-16.00       Web:      www.suse.dk

Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> Getting the Linux, FreeBSD, and other geek news sites their press release is
> just as important, but, that's a different audience who needs a different
> press release.  ZDNet and its ilk could get the mainstream release, with only
> a link to the homepage.  The geek news gets a meatier press release, with
> links to the home page, downloads, and release notes.  And Hackers gets the
> release notes.  One size does not fit all.

ISTM Lamar's struck the nail pretty square on the head here.  We have
several easily-identifiable audiences for release announcements.  We
have to provide each audience with the material they want.

I believe the current core team ("technical core" if you like that
phrase) understands what sort of info the pgsql-hackers audience wants.
I'm very happy to defer to someone else's judgement on how to present
the same info to non-hacker audiences.

Seems like the next problem is to figure out exactly who gets the last
say in those decisions.  I made a lot of sweeping statements yesterday
about earning one's respect by track record ... but I'm not sure what
we do in the short run before anyone's established track records ...

            regards, tom lane

On Saturday 14 June 2003 12:06 am, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> > Getting the Linux, FreeBSD, and other geek news sites their press release
> > is just as important, but, that's a different audience who needs a
> > different press release.  ZDNet and its ilk could get the mainstream
> > release, with only a link to the homepage.  The geek news gets a meatier
> > press release, with links to the home page, downloads, and release notes.
> >  And Hackers gets the release notes.  One size does not fit all.
>
> ISTM Lamar's struck the nail pretty square on the head here.  We have
> several easily-identifiable audiences for release announcements.  We
> have to provide each audience with the material they want.
>

The current plan for the next major release is to write up a general press
release to be distributed to -announce and to the list o' press contacts.
It'll also go up on the various websites. However it *won't* be sent to the
-hackers list.  This worked well the last time (save the hackers part) and I
don't think anyone has brought up a reason to change it.

> I believe the current core team ("technical core" if you like that
> phrase) understands what sort of info the pgsql-hackers audience wants.
> I'm very happy to defer to someone else's judgement on how to present
> the same info to non-hacker audiences.
>
> Seems like the next problem is to figure out exactly who gets the last
> say in those decisions.  I made a lot of sweeping statements yesterday
> about earning one's respect by track record ... but I'm not sure what
> we do in the short run before anyone's established track records ...
>

we can sort that one out with whoever shows up on -advocacy.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Tom Lane wrote:
<snip>
 >  I made a lot of sweeping statements yesterday
> about earning one's respect by track record ... but I'm not sure what
> we do in the short run before anyone's established track records ...

That bit's easy.

The people in the Advocacy group who have already shown themselves to be
extremely solid contributors and also very clueful are at least:

Josh Berkus
Robert Treat
er... myself  :-)

There are other solid contibutors too, but Josh and Robert have both
demonstrated good contributor and leadership qualities, plus good common
sense.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


>             regards, tom lane

Robert Treat wrote:
> are people willing to delay releases for marketing purposes? we seem to
> be into a nasty habit of release on holidays which means it has taken us
> a few days to get all of the websites updated and emails sent out. if we
> could get core to support the idea that a release date must get approval
> from the advocacy guys before it can be announced that would be helpful.

I have no problem with that. More to the point, even things like the
release numbering are (unfortunately) more of a marketing issue these
days than reflecting any technical aspects.

> that's the kind of issue that i see causing problems with the technical
> side of the community and i'm not sure any amount of credibility with
> the users will help.

The latin word "credere" means trust. One can only proove that he's
credible (trustworthy) if we let him.


Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 19:04, Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
> > are people willing to delay releases for marketing purposes? we seem to
> > be into a nasty habit of release on holidays which means it has taken us
> > a few days to get all of the websites updated and emails sent out. if we
> > could get core to support the idea that a release date must get approval
> > from the advocacy guys before it can be announced that would be helpful.
>
<snip>
> Also, I don't see that press releases necessarily has to be made at the last
> minute. All the features of a major release will be in place weeks before the
> release date as there always will be beta testing.
>

Just to clarify, by delay I mean "instead of release this Wednesday,
let's do it on Friday".  This should only be needed for purposes of
coordinating between the folks doing translations, sending emails,
updating the websites, setting up the ftp servers, and that type of
thing. I expect to start the press release process at the start of
feature freeze (July 1st).

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL