Thread: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Decision Process WAS: Increased company involvement
> -----Original Message----- > From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh@agliodbs.com] > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:21 PM > To: Bruce Momjian > Cc: Marc G. Fournier; PostgreSQL advocacy; Dave Held; > PostgreSQL-development > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] Decision Process WAS: > Increased > company involvement > > [...] > Hmmm ... why does everyone assume that Core does more than > what we do? I think that most people would be surprised by > how *little* traffic there is on the pgsql-core mailing list. Well, I never said that core runs around saving the world. I mostly made the point that core developers have special influence, and that should be considered when contributing to Postgres, which is directly relevant to the point of the thread, which was originally called "Increased company involvement." > Core decides on releases, and approves committers. > Occasionally we'll handle something which requires > confidentiality, like a security issue or a new > corporate participant. Which is also something that new would-be corporate contributors should know about. > [...] > Materially, what's accepted is decided through open > discussion on the pgsql-hackers list; even Tom brings > up his patches for discussion before commit, and I'd > defy you to point to even one patch which was accepted > by consensus on pgsql-hackers and not committed. But this misses the point. The point is that consensus is often an iterative process, and even if a few people support an idea at first, in the end, the weight of a few "inner circle" people (whether they be core or patch approvers or whatnot) tends to sway the consensus in a certain direction. This isn't always bad, especially if those core people simply know more about the internals of Postgres to have better judgement. It is bad if the person making the proposal doesn't feel he/she has good odds in defending the proposal and gives up without a fight. > As you've already observed, if Tom doesn't like something > it's very unlikely to get through. But that's true for > a lot of major contributors; the consensus process we use > provides ample opportunities to veto and slender > opportunities to pass. This also misses another point. I'm not saying that the current process is inherently flawed. It's probably about as good as any OSS project. My point is that it's not *democratic*, and that outsiders wishing to contribute should understand the dynamic of the process that is not explicitly and officially spelled out anywhere. > [...] > From my perspective, this is a good thing for a database > system which can get easily broken by an ill-considered > patch. It's *good* for us to be development-conservative. Right. I agree. I'm not criticising the process as a whole, and I've more or less made this exact point myself. > So there is an "insider group", but it's the group of major > contributors. That is exactly my point, but you said it better. > Tom has the loudest voice because he writes the most code. > The fact that Tom, Bruce or Peter's veto is often as far as > a proposal goes is simply because most of the pgsql-hackers > subscribers simply don't involve themselves in the process > unless it's one of their own pet features. Which is perfectly understandable. You can probaby guess that most people who use Postgres haven't tried to implement an RDBMS themselves, and have only a shallow understanding of the details. > And the important thing about the group of major contributors > is that membership is open. Which may be true philosophically, but in practice, most people who contribute will not have the resources or motivation to become a major contributor. I do not mean to imply that this is necessarily a bad thing; but I think it is the true state of affairs, and part of the dynamic which must be understood by someone considering investing in Postgres as a contributor. > [...] > If people want the acceptance process to be more "democratic", > then those people have to be willing to do the work of full > participation. That actually doesn't make it more democratic. In a democracy, everyone has an equal vote regardless of their status. The point is that a democracy is not always a priori the best form of organization. What you describe is actually a meritocracy, and for a project like Postgres, it makes a lot of sense. But that merely reinforces my point that contributors need to understand that if their pet feature they create is not in line with core thinking, they will have to earn the credibility to get community buy-in. > [...] > (P.S. on a complete tangent, "call a spade a spade" is > actually a racist expression originating in the > reconstruction-era South. "spade" does not mean garden tool > but is a derogatory slang term for black people. > [...] Interesting. Duly noted. __ David B. Held Software Engineer/Array Services Group 200 14th Ave. East, Sartell, MN 56377 320.534.3637 320.253.7800 800.752.8129
Dave Held wrote: >>[...] >>(P.S. on a complete tangent, "call a spade a spade" is >>actually a racist expression originating in the >>reconstruction-era South. "spade" does not mean garden tool >>but is a derogatory slang term for black people. >>[...] >> >> > >Interesting. Duly noted. > > > > It would be interesting if it were true. Be careful the urban myths you accept. See for more info: http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970115 Use of the phrase is unwise these days because of the widespread misconception about its origin. PC bites us all. cheers andrew
Dave, > Well, I never said that core runs around saving the world. I > mostly made the point that core developers have special > influence, Yep. Absolutely. I wanted to point out to you that core isn't the only group within PostgreSQL that has special influence. > Which is also something that new would-be corporate > contributors should know about. Yes. All of this would be worthy of a FAQ somewhere. Up for it? > It is bad if the person > making the proposal doesn't feel he/she has good odds in > defending the proposal and gives up without a fight. Yes. Again, I think a FAQ would help. If people are prepared for the idea of defending their ideas, then they're less likely to quit as soon as someone says "no". > My point is that it's not *democratic*, > and that outsiders wishing to contribute should understand > the dynamic of the process that is not explicitly and officially > spelled out anywhere. Hmmm. We'll there's two (or more) uses of the word "democratic"; so I think there's considerable confusion resulting. In the sense of "democratic" meaning "maximizing the participation and authority of all project members", we are "democratic". In the sense of "one person, one vote", we are not. Classically, our structure could be described as "anarchistic" -- in the 1890's definition, not the modern one. > Right. I agree. I'm not criticising the process as a whole, > and I've more or less made this exact point myself. Yes. I'm not responding just to you, btw. I'm responding to a number of comments from other people who erroneously see Core as exercising more authority than we actually do. > Which may be true philosophically, but in practice, most people > who contribute will not have the resources or motivation to > become a major contributor. I do not mean to imply that this > is necessarily a bad thing; but I think it is the true state of > affairs, and part of the dynamic which must be understood by > someone considering investing in Postgres as a contributor. Certainly. Although the decision-making process for acceptance is really of interest primarily for contributors; that is, if you are not submitting, even by proxy, it shouldn't really matter to you how stuff gets accepted. Except to the extent that you *should* jump in and advocate for proposals by others which you like so that the contributors, committers, and core know what people care about. > That actually doesn't make it more democratic. In a democracy, > everyone has an equal vote regardless of their status. The point > is that a democracy is not always a priori the best form of > organization. Certainly. See above. > What you describe is actually a meritocracy, > and for a project like Postgres, it makes a lot of sense. Hmmm ... I dislike the word "meritocracy" because it is applied equally to corporations, where regardless of merit you're never going to be on the Board. > But > that merely reinforces my point that contributors need to > understand that if their pet feature they create is not in line > with core thinking, they will have to earn the credibility to > get community buy-in. Substitute "major contributors" for "core", and you have *my* buy-in. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Dave, > > > Well, I never said that core runs around saving the world. I > > mostly made the point that core developers have special > > influence, > > Yep. Absolutely. I wanted to point out to you that core isn't the only > group within PostgreSQL that has special influence. > > > Which is also something that new would-be corporate > > contributors should know about. > > Yes. All of this would be worthy of a FAQ somewhere. Up for it? I am working on one based on my original statement that started this thread. Witht this dicussion, it has move to the top of my TODO list. -- 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
Dave Held wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh@agliodbs.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:21 PM
> > To: Bruce Momjian
> > Cc: Marc G. Fournier; PostgreSQL advocacy; Dave Held;
> > PostgreSQL-development
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] Decision Process WAS:
> > Increased
> > company involvement
> >
> > [...]
> > Hmmm ... why does everyone assume that Core does more than
> > what we do? I think that most people would be surprised by
> > how *little* traffic there is on the pgsql-core mailing list.
>
> Well, I never said that core runs around saving the world. I
> mostly made the point that core developers have special
> influence, and that should be considered when contributing to
> Postgres, which is directly relevant to the point of the
> thread, which was originally called "Increased company
> involvement."
Here is a new FAQ entry:
<H3><A name="1.13">1.13</A>) Who controls PostgreSQL?<BR>
<P>If you are looking for a PostgreSQL gatekeeper, central committee,
or controlling company, give up, because none exists. We do have a
core committee and CVS committers, but these groups are more for
administrative purposes then control. The project is directed by
the open community of developers and users of PostgreSQL. Everyone
is welcome to subscribe and take part in the discussions. (See the
<a href="http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ_DEV.html">
Developer's FAQ</A> for information on how to get involved in PostgreSQL
development.)</P>
Adjustments?
--
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
while you weren't looking, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Adjustments? A couple slight tweaks and rephrasings: <p>If you're looking for a PostgreSQL gatekeeper, central committe or controlling company, give up; there isn't one. We do have a core committe and don't hand out CVS commit privileges like candy, but this is more for ease of administration than control. The project is driven by the needs of the community of developers and users, which anyone can join. All you need to do is subscribe to the mailing list(s) and participate in the discussions. (See the <a href="http://www.postgresql.org/faqs.FAQ_DEV.html">Developer's FAQ</a> for more information on how to get involved in PostgreSQL development.)</p> /rls -- :wq
while you weren't looking, I wrote: [...] Gah. s/committe/committee/ /rls -- :wq
Rosser Schwarz wrote: > while you weren't looking, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Adjustments? > > A couple slight tweaks and rephrasings: > > <p>If you're looking for a PostgreSQL gatekeeper, central committe or > controlling company, give up; there isn't one. We do have a core > committe and don't hand out CVS commit privileges like candy, but this > is more for ease of administration than control. The project is driven > by the needs of the community of developers and users, which anyone > can join. All you need to do is subscribe to the mailing list(s) and > participate in the discussions. (See the <a > href="http://www.postgresql.org/faqs.FAQ_DEV.html">Developer's FAQ</a> > for more information on how to get involved in PostgreSQL > development.)</p> > Thanks. Updated, I merged in parts of your text: <H3><A name="1.13">1.13</A>) Who controls PostgreSQL?<BR> <P>If you are looking for a PostgreSQL gatekeeper, central committee, or controlling company, give up --- there isn't one. We do have a core committee and CVS committers, but these groups are more for administrative purposes than control. The project is directed by the community of developers and users, which anyone can join. All you need to do is subscribe to the mailing lists and participate in the discussions. (See the <a href="http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ_DE$ Developer's FAQ</A> for information on how to get involved in PostgreSQL development.)</P> -- 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