Thread: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement

pgman wrote:
> > If you don't do that, then yes I can see why it would feel as if
> > the proposer was at a loss once someone like Tom writes his opinion.
> > 
> > However Tom isn't the final word, he just happens to have a lot of 
> > weight as anyone within the project of good standing who donates as much 
> > as he does would.
> > 
> > Everything within the community is pretty much done as a vote and there 
> > are things that core really has nothing to do with (like pgFoundry).
> 
> Right, the point is that Tom has weight because he is Tom and people
> value his opinion, not because he is core.

It seems that though discerning observers agree with the above
statement, the perception of new people is that Tom has weight _mostly_
because he is in core. 

So, how do we fix this?  Do we boot Tom out of core so people can see he
has the same impact?  That seems pointless.

(Funny, no one says I have too much power.  I will have to look into how
to get some someday.)  :-)

--  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,
Pennsylvania19073
 

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> (Funny, no one says I have too much power.  I will have to look into how
> to get some someday.)  :-)

I think you have power, too. :-) You have commited many patches that some 
other commiters didn't like that much and would rather not have applied 
themselves. All with some consensus from the community, of course.

The reason, IMHO, that Tom is seen as someone with more power than others, 
is because of his intimate knowledge of postgresql and software design in 
general. Most of his proposals are very welcome to the community and nobody 
would be against those. And if there are objections, Tom will usually listen 
to valid criticism and adapt his work.

Not all core members or regular patch submitters have agreed with all 
changes in the past, not even within this "in"-group. There are different 
opinions and it's not one who always "wins". I believe there is quite a 
balance.

For many changes and patches proposed, most of the rejections I have seen 
were based on lack of knowledge of either postgresql design or philosophy or 
bad software design in general. Of course its rather the "in"-group who 
defined the postgresql design and philosophy in the first place, but well, 
it is because of them that postgresql exists as what it is.

Most of the hassles can be avoided by speaking up on hackers first and 
convince some one with good postgresql know-how to help you get your work on 
track.

Best Regards,
Michael Paesold