Thread: request for sponsors page
Hi there, I and Teodor ask about adding our sponsor jfg://networks (http://www.over-blog.com/) to the sponsor's page http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors. This company supported our work on GIN index (initial development for 8.2 and improvement for 8.4). Regards, Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru), Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 13:22, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > Hi there, > > I and Teodor ask about adding our sponsor jfg://networks > (http://www.over-blog.com/) to the sponsor's page > http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors. Right now, we only put up year-round sponsors of full-time developers. Someday we'll be able to list other sponsors, but not at the moment. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL San Francisco
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:34:51 -0700 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 20 August 2008 13:22, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I and Teodor ask about adding our sponsor jfg://networks > > (http://www.over-blog.com/) to the sponsor's page > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors. > > Right now, we only put up year-round sponsors of full-time > developers. Someday we'll be able to list other sponsors, but not at > the moment. > Then there are a whole bunch of sponsors that need to be removed. Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Joshua Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:34:51 -0700 > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday 20 August 2008 13:22, Oleg Bartunov wrote: >> > Hi there, >> > >> > I and Teodor ask about adding our sponsor jfg://networks >> > (http://www.over-blog.com/) to the sponsor's page >> > http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors. >> >> Right now, we only put up year-round sponsors of full-time >> developers. Someday we'll be able to list other sponsors, but not at >> the moment. >> > > Then there are a whole bunch of sponsors that need to be removed. My thoughts exactly. Weren't you drafting a policy for sponsor recognition at one point? -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave, > My thoughts exactly. Weren't you drafting a policy for sponsor > recognition at one point? Yes, but: a) we don't have technology to track sponsors right now (working on it), and b) JD argued with me so much I got tired of discussing it. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL San Francisco
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Dave, > >> My thoughts exactly. Weren't you drafting a policy for sponsor >> recognition at one point? > > Yes, but: > > a) we don't have technology to track sponsors right now (working on it), > and Hah - from the man that argued against over-engineering techdocs a few years back, that's funny. We don't need software to manage what is currently less than a couple of dozen sponsors. A spreadsheet listing them, review date and qualifying criteria which is periodically re-assessed will be more than adequate. > b) JD argued with me so much I got tired of discussing it. Which is why I suggested to him that we restart the discussion with some new blood to break the deadlock. If we cannot reach a consensus, then it'll have to be a majority or we'll never move forward. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Josh Berkus wrote: > On Wednesday 20 August 2008 13:22, Oleg Bartunov wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> I and Teodor ask about adding our sponsor jfg://networks >> (http://www.over-blog.com/) to the sponsor's page >> http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors. > > Right now, we only put up year-round sponsors of full-time developers. > Someday we'll be able to list other sponsors, but not at the moment. Hmm, I think the more important factor here is the net result of support and it'd be fair to list a list of features supported. There are many important contributions developed by non full-time developers. Regards, Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru), Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dave,
>
>> My thoughts exactly. Weren't you drafting a policy for sponsor
>> recognition at one point?
>
> Yes, but:
>
> a) we don't have technology to track sponsors right now (working on it),
there are not so many sponsors we can't track. I think, like in our case,
if developer(s) explicitly acknowledge a company for support in
publicly available document, presented on PostgreSQL conference, it
should be a good recomendation.
We acknowledged jfg://networks several times
in our presentation ob PGCon and there are should be no doubts that
it is jfg://networks, which supported GIN development and continue support
of our current work on GIN improvement.
Regards, Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
Oleg Bartunov wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> On Wednesday 20 August 2008 13:22, Oleg Bartunov wrote: >>> Hi there, >>> >>> I and Teodor ask about adding our sponsor jfg://networks >>> (http://www.over-blog.com/) to the sponsor's page >>> http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors. >> >> Right now, we only put up year-round sponsors of full-time developers. >> Someday we'll be able to list other sponsors, but not at the moment. > > Hmm, I think the more important factor here is the net result of support > and it'd be fair to list a list of features supported. There are many > important contributions developed by non full-time developers. Oh, I agree completely. I'm just telling you that the effort to revamp the sponsors page has been permanently stuck in political deadlock and lack of volunteer time for some years now. --Josh
Dave Page wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> Dave, >> >>> My thoughts exactly. Weren't you drafting a policy for sponsor >>> recognition at one point? >> Yes, but: >> >> a) we don't have technology to track sponsors right now (working on it), >> and > > Hah - from the man that argued against over-engineering techdocs a few > years back, that's funny. We don't need software to manage what is > currently less than a couple of dozen sponsors. A spreadsheet listing > them, review date and qualifying criteria which is periodically > re-assessed will be more than adequate. Actually, there are quite a few more than that. Dozens to hundreds depending on whom we include. You're only thinking about the handful of large corporate donors, and not the scores of individual givers and in-kind donors. --Josh
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> Hah - from the man that argued against over-engineering techdocs a few >> years back, that's funny. We don't need software to manage what is >> currently less than a couple of dozen sponsors. A spreadsheet listing >> them, review date and qualifying criteria which is periodically >> re-assessed will be more than adequate. > > Actually, there are quite a few more than that. Dozens to hundreds > depending on whom we include. You're only thinking about the handful of > large corporate donors, and not the scores of individual givers and in-kind > donors. No, I'm not because if you think we should start tracking and listing everyone that gives us five bucks then you clearly need to come in out of the sun for a while :-). We're talking about managing a single page of major sponsors on our website. It's not rocket science, doesn't need specialist software and should be a relatively trivial task. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Oh, I agree completely. I'm just telling you that the effort to revamp the > sponsors page has been permanently stuck in political deadlock and lack of > volunteer time for some years now. Afaict there's nothing political about it - just differing views on how it should be handled. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave, > No, I'm not because if you think we should start tracking and listing > everyone that gives us five bucks then you clearly need to come in out > of the sun for a while :-). Why not? It's the best way to increase the number of people who give us $5. > We're talking about managing a single page of major sponsors on our > website. It's not rocket science, doesn't need specialist software and > should be a relatively trivial task. Ah, ok, you're just trying to fix the immediate problem, not the more substantial long-term issue of building our sponsor base through sponsor listings which go beyond the top 10 sponors. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL San Francisco
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:32:48 -0700 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > We're talking about managing a single page of major sponsors on our > > website. It's not rocket science, doesn't need specialist software > > and should be a relatively trivial task. > > Ah, ok, you're just trying to fix the immediate problem, not the more > substantial long-term issue of building our sponsor base through > sponsor listings which go beyond the top 10 sponors. > There is a question is to whether that long term issue exists. It could be easily argued that "building our sponsor base" is a problem looking for a solution. Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Josh Berkus wrote: > Oleg Bartunov wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday 20 August 2008 13:22, Oleg Bartunov wrote: >>>> Hi there, >>>> >>>> I and Teodor ask about adding our sponsor jfg://networks >>>> (http://www.over-blog.com/) to the sponsor's page >>>> http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors. >>> >>> Right now, we only put up year-round sponsors of full-time developers. >>> Someday we'll be able to list other sponsors, but not at the moment. >> >> Hmm, I think the more important factor here is the net result of support >> and it'd be fair to list a list of features supported. There are many >> important contributions developed by non full-time developers. > > Oh, I agree completely. I'm just telling you that the effort to revamp the > sponsors page has been permanently stuck in political deadlock and lack of > volunteer time for some years now. I'm not about global political changes, I'm about adding my sponsor, which is a the biggest postgres user in France. Regards, Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru), Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Dave, > >> No, I'm not because if you think we should start tracking and listing >> everyone that gives us five bucks then you clearly need to come in out >> of the sun for a while :-). > > Why not? It's the best way to increase the number of people who give us > $5. Really? I can't think of many people who would care that much - and even if they did, simply listing names and amounts for small donors would be similarly trivial to do. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dave,
>
>> No, I'm not because if you think we should start tracking and listing
>> everyone that gives us five bucks then you clearly need to come in out
>> of the sun for a while :-).
>
> Why not? It's the best way to increase the number of people who give us
> $5.
+1
>
>> We're talking about managing a single page of major sponsors on our
>> website. It's not rocket science, doesn't need specialist software and
>> should be a relatively trivial task.
>
> Ah, ok, you're just trying to fix the immediate problem, not the more
> substantial long-term issue of building our sponsor base through sponsor
> listings which go beyond the top 10 sponors.
I think we need several sponsors page - one for major feature sponsors with
explicit list of features, one for full-time employers, one for
individuals.
Regards, Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:40:10 +0100 "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> > wrote: > > Dave, > > > >> No, I'm not because if you think we should start tracking and > >> listing everyone that gives us five bucks then you clearly need to > >> come in out of the sun for a while :-). > > > > Why not? It's the best way to increase the number of people who > > give us $5. > > Really? I can't think of many people who would care that much - and > even if they did, simply listing names and amounts for small donors > would be similarly trivial to do. > I think Josh is using his overly pessimistic view here. We are an software project not a global corporation selling something. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Dave, > > Really? I can't think of many people who would care that much - and > > even if they did, simply listing names and amounts for small donors > > would be similarly trivial to do. A few people care, and why not get those people's donations as well? Screen real estate is cheap, except on the home page. And it makes people feel good about donating, even when it doesn't increase giving. All I'm talking about is having a list of donors within a few broad categories. > I think Josh is using his overly pessimistic view here. We are an > software project not a global corporation selling something. Huh? What does that have to do with anything? Donor listings are a proven way to improve donor relations throughout non-profits worldwide. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL San Francisco
On Thursday 21 August 2008 15:38:48 Oleg Bartunov wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Oleg Bartunov wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Josh Berkus wrote: > >>> On Wednesday 20 August 2008 13:22, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > >>>> Hi there, > >>>> > >>>> I and Teodor ask about adding our sponsor jfg://networks > >>>> (http://www.over-blog.com/) to the sponsor's page > >>>> http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors. > >>> > >>> Right now, we only put up year-round sponsors of full-time developers. > >>> Someday we'll be able to list other sponsors, but not at the moment. > >> > >> Hmm, I think the more important factor here is the net result of support > >> and it'd be fair to list a list of features supported. There are many > >> important contributions developed by non full-time developers. > > > > Oh, I agree completely. I'm just telling you that the effort to revamp > > the sponsors page has been permanently stuck in political deadlock and > > lack of volunteer time for some years now. > > I'm not about global political changes, I'm about adding my sponsor, which > is a the biggest postgres user in France. > Dare I mention it, but we have a history of listing people who contribute code for each release, perhaps we should add a "sponsors" section in the release notes, and include a list of every company who sponsors a feature for that release (based on designation of the developer who did the work). -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:32:05 -0700 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > I think Josh is using his overly pessimistic view here. We are an > > software project not a global corporation selling something. > > Huh? What does that have to do with anything? > > Donor listings are a proven way to improve donor relations throughout > non-profits worldwide. PostgreSQL.Org is not a non profit it is a software project. Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Robert Treat wrote: > > >>> Right now, we only put up year-round sponsors of full-time developers. > > >>> Someday we'll be able to list other sponsors, but not at the moment. > > >> > > >> Hmm, I think the more important factor here is the net result of support > > >> and it'd be fair to list a list of features supported. There are many > > >> important contributions developed by non full-time developers. > > > > > > Oh, I agree completely. I'm just telling you that the effort to revamp > > > the sponsors page has been permanently stuck in political deadlock and > > > lack of volunteer time for some years now. > > > > I'm not about global political changes, I'm about adding my sponsor, which > > is a the biggest postgres user in France. > > > > Dare I mention it, but we have a history of listing people who contribute code > for each release, perhaps we should add a "sponsors" section in the release > notes, and include a list of every company who sponsors a feature for that > release (based on designation of the developer who did the work). We mention companies in the press release; having them in the release notes seems like advertizing, and advertizing that will remain in the release notes for years and years (which is probably bad). -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thursday 21 August 2008 17:00:29 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > > >>> Right now, we only put up year-round sponsors of full-time
> > > >>> developers. Someday we'll be able to list other sponsors, but not
> > > >>> at the moment.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hmm, I think the more important factor here is the net result of
> > > >> support and it'd be fair to list a list of features supported. There
> > > >> are many important contributions developed by non full-time
> > > >> developers.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I agree completely. I'm just telling you that the effort to
> > > > revamp the sponsors page has been permanently stuck in political
> > > > deadlock and lack of volunteer time for some years now.
> > >
> > > I'm not about global political changes, I'm about adding my sponsor,
> > > which is a the biggest postgres user in France.
> >
> > Dare I mention it, but we have a history of listing people who contribute
> > code for each release, perhaps we should add a "sponsors" section in the
> > release notes, and include a list of every company who sponsors a feature
> > for that release (based on designation of the developer who did the
> > work).
>
> We mention companies in the press release; having them in the release
> notes seems like advertizing, and advertizing that will remain in the
> release notes for years and years (which is probably bad).
>
Well, technically it is advertising, but I don't see why it is necessarily
bad. Developer contributions live on in old release notes for many years even
once the developer stops contributing, why not with companies? Or to put it
another way, would it be so bad if people looking in the 7.3 release notes
saw Great Bridge listed as a corporate sponsor for that release?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > > > Dare I mention it, but we have a history of listing people who contribute > > > code for each release, perhaps we should add a "sponsors" section in the > > > release notes, and include a list of every company who sponsors a feature > > > for that release (based on designation of the developer who did the > > > work). > > > > We mention companies in the press release; having them in the release > > notes seems like advertizing, and advertizing that will remain in the > > release notes for years and years (which is probably bad). > > > > Well, technically it is advertising, but I don't see why it is necessarily > bad. Developer contributions live on in old release notes for many years even > once the developer stops contributing, why not with companies? Or to put it > another way, would it be so bad if people looking in the 7.3 release notes > saw Great Bridge listed as a corporate sponsor for that release? In my opinion, for individuals, it is recognition; for companies it is advertizing. I think company names would be ugly after a while. And what do you do for people who work and are sponsored by companies? Put both the company name and author? Frankly I would rather remove all the names from the release notes before making them longer with both. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thursday 21 August 2008 18:03:30 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > > > Dare I mention it, but we have a history of listing people who
> > > > contribute code for each release, perhaps we should add a "sponsors"
> > > > section in the release notes, and include a list of every company who
> > > > sponsors a feature for that release (based on designation of the
> > > > developer who did the work).
> > >
> > > We mention companies in the press release; having them in the release
> > > notes seems like advertizing, and advertizing that will remain in the
> > > release notes for years and years (which is probably bad).
> >
> > Well, technically it is advertising, but I don't see why it is
> > necessarily bad. Developer contributions live on in old release notes for
> > many years even once the developer stops contributing, why not with
> > companies? Or to put it another way, would it be so bad if people
> > looking in the 7.3 release notes saw Great Bridge listed as a corporate
> > sponsor for that release?
>
> In my opinion, for individuals, it is recognition; for companies it is
> advertizing.
we're recognizing those companies who help make postgresql what it is
today :-)
> I think company names would be ugly after a while. And
> what do you do for people who work and are sponsored by companies? Put
> both the company name and author? Frankly I would rather remove all the
> names from the release notes before making them longer with both.
>
yeah, I would listed the person next to the feature (as we do now), and then
add a section to the bottom noting "companies who contributed to this release
include:" and then have a list of companies. Personally I don't think it
would be that bad, and might encourage companies to sponsor more work. But if
no one else thinks so, no worries, was just an idea.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > > In my opinion, for individuals, it is recognition; for companies it is > > advertizing. > > we're recognizing those companies who help make postgresql what it is > today :-) Agreed, but does it make sense to mix that into a technical list of features? I like it in the press release and release announcement, but not in the technical list; it seems inappropriate there. > > I think company names would be ugly after a while. And > > what do you do for people who work and are sponsored by companies? Put > > both the company name and author? Frankly I would rather remove all the > > names from the release notes before making them longer with both. > > > > yeah, I would listed the person next to the feature (as we do now), and then > add a section to the bottom noting "companies who contributed to this release > include:" and then have a list of companies. Personally I don't think it > would be that bad, and might encourage companies to sponsor more work. But if > no one else thinks so, no worries, was just an idea. Well, a list at the bottom does sound pretty clean, though I can see the list being quite long. How do we even collect these names, particularly for employers that give work time to employees for open source development? Personally I think companies read announcements, not release notes, which is why I would like our efforts concentrated there. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Josh Berkus wrote: > > No, I'm not because if you think we should start tracking and listing > > everyone that gives us five bucks then you clearly need to come in out > > of the sun for a while :-). > > Why not? It's the best way to increase the number of people who give us > $5. Well, someone giving three qualified answers to a mailing list inquiry on a user list is worth a lot more than five bucks of their time, and you surely don't want to include that in your listing.
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: >>> No, I'm not because if you think we should start tracking and listing >>> everyone that gives us five bucks then you clearly need to come in out >>> of the sun for a while :-). >> Why not? It's the best way to increase the number of people who give us >> $5. > > Well, someone giving three qualified answers to a mailing list inquiry on a > user list is worth a lot more than five bucks of their time, and you surely > don't want to include that in your listing. > If we use money as the qualifier for sponsorships listing anything less than 5 - 10k is silly. We already provide thank you, hand shake, and general acknowledgment. Here is the thing, most of the people that contribute are already getting their return from: A. The software B. The kick butt community we have C. What they sponsored Generally speaking people don't sponsor PostgreSQL.Org. They sponsor WEST, PGDay, PGEU etc... They are already getting their monies worth. They don't even need to be on PostgreSQL.Org and frankly if they are going to be on PostgreSQL.Org we need to greatly increase the cost of our sponsorships. Now moving "out" of the money side of things we have the real contributions, code and man power. CMD EDB Sun etc... Those entities should be on the web site. The only question is, where and in what order. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: >>> No, I'm not because if you think we should start tracking and listing >>> everyone that gives us five bucks then you clearly need to come in out >>> of the sun for a while :-). >> Why not? It's the best way to increase the number of people who give us >> $5. > > Well, someone giving three qualified answers to a mailing list inquiry on a > user list is worth a lot more than five bucks of their time, and you surely > don't want to include that in your listing. I fail to see how this is an argument. We can't account for absolutely every last person who helps the project, so we shouldn't list any of them? --Josh
Josh Berkus wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > >>> No, I'm not because if you think we should start tracking and listing > >>> everyone that gives us five bucks then you clearly need to come in out > >>> of the sun for a while :-). > >> Why not? It's the best way to increase the number of people who give us > >> $5. > > > > Well, someone giving three qualified answers to a mailing list inquiry on a > > user list is worth a lot more than five bucks of their time, and you surely > > don't want to include that in your listing. > > I fail to see how this is an argument. We can't account for absolutely > every last person who helps the project, so we shouldn't list any of them? We can do that. I think the big argument is that contribution attribution can easily obscure our actual work, which could hurt us. Also, we are not as dependent on funds like a typical non-profit. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:58:12 -0700 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > >>> No, I'm not because if you think we should start tracking and > >>> listing everyone that gives us five bucks then you clearly need > >>> to come in out of the sun for a while :-). > >> Why not? It's the best way to increase the number of people who > >> give us $5. > > > > Well, someone giving three qualified answers to a mailing list > > inquiry on a user list is worth a lot more than five bucks of their > > time, and you surely don't want to include that in your listing. > > I fail to see how this is an argument. We can't account for > absolutely every last person who helps the project, so we shouldn't > list any of them? I don't think that is what Peter is saying. I think Peter is saying we are putting value on the wrong things. At least that is how I read it. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Robert, > yeah, I would listed the person next to the feature (as we do now), and then > add a section to the bottom noting "companies who contributed to this release > include:" and then have a list of companies. Personally I don't think it > would be that bad, and might encourage companies to sponsor more work. But if > no one else thinks so, no worries, was just an idea. I don't think it's an inconceivable idea. However, I do think that the corporate sponsors would be more pleased by a relatively complete set of sponsor listings on www.postgresql.org. --Josh
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Josh Berkus wrote: >>>> No, I'm not because if you think we should start tracking and listing >>>> everyone that gives us five bucks then you clearly need to come in out >>>> of the sun for a while :-). >>> Why not? It's the best way to increase the number of people who give us >>> $5. >> >> Well, someone giving three qualified answers to a mailing list inquiry >> on a user list is worth a lot more than five bucks of their time, and >> you surely don't want to include that in your listing. >> > > If we use money as the qualifier for sponsorships listing anything less > than 5 - 10k is silly. We already provide thank you, hand shake, and > general acknowledgment. Here is the thing, most of the people that > contribute are already getting their return from: Well, $2000 is a small amount for a corporation, but it's a very large amount for an individual. I seriously think that donors like Gevik, who gives us around $400 a year of his personal money in addition to contributing time, deserve some extra recognition. I agree that having a threshold for listing on the website is sensible, I'd just like to have that threshold a little lower than you would. --Josh Berkus
Oleg Bartunov wrote: > Hi there, > > I and Teodor ask about adding our sponsor jfg://networks > (http://www.over-blog.com/) to the sponsor's page > http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors. > > This company supported our work on GIN index (initial development for 8.2 and > improvement for 8.4). All this discussion, and still jfg://networks has not yet been added to the sponsors page. Does anyone object to me doing it? I don't really care for the lot of people who spent $20 on a t-shirt or plush elephant. People go to the movies or have dinner and spend that amount of money without even thinking about it. Sponsoring a development is a very different endeavor. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Friday 22 August 2008 13:51:08 Josh Berkus wrote:
> Well, $2000 is a small amount for a corporation, but it's a very large
> amount for an individual. I seriously think that donors like Gevik, who
> gives us around $400 a year of his personal money in addition to
> contributing time, deserve some extra recognition.
>
If we want to recognize personal contributors, we should have a page listing
those individuals who have made contributions to the project. we could break
it up into major contributors and other contributors, and maybe even have a
section for past contributors. if it was managed fairly and updated
regularly, I bet people would really go for that.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:56:51 -0400 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Oleg Bartunov wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I and Teodor ask about adding our sponsor jfg://networks > > (http://www.over-blog.com/) to the sponsor's page > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors. > > > > This company supported our work on GIN index (initial development > > for 8.2 and improvement for 8.4). > > All this discussion, and still jfg://networks has not yet been added > to the sponsors page. Does anyone object to me doing it? > > I don't really care for the lot of people who spent $20 on a t-shirt > or plush elephant. People go to the movies or have dinner and spend > that amount of money without even thinking about it. Sponsoring a > development is a very different endeavor. We really can't add any more sponsors until we hammer out what makes a sponsor qualify. I seriously doubt that jfg would be excluded under such a thing and it is being worked on; a little patience :) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 01:32:05PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Dave, > > > > Really? I can't think of many people who would care that much - > > > and even if they did, simply listing names and amounts for small > > > donors would be similarly trivial to do. > > A few people care, and why not get those people's donations as well? > Screen real estate is cheap, except on the home page. And it makes > people feel good about donating, even when it doesn't increase > giving. > > All I'm talking about is having a list of donors within a few broad > categories. > > > I think Josh is using his overly pessimistic view here. We are an > > software project not a global corporation selling something. > > Huh? What does that have to do with anything? > > Donor listings are a proven way to improve donor relations > throughout non-profits worldwide. Not just non-profits, either. We're a social species, and we're motivated at a powerful, primitive level by messages to the effect of, "lots of others like you are doing this." Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Thursday 21 August 2008 12:33, Joshua Drake wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:32:48 -0700 > > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > > We're talking about managing a single page of major sponsors on our > > > website. It's not rocket science, doesn't need specialist software > > > and should be a relatively trivial task. > > > > Ah, ok, you're just trying to fix the immediate problem, not the more > > substantial long-term issue of building our sponsor base through > > sponsor listings which go beyond the top 10 sponors. > > There is a question is to whether that long term issue exists. It could > be easily argued that "building our sponsor base" is a problem looking > for a solution. Well, let's put it another way: multiple donors of $5000 or less have requested donor listings. So there's a current demand from our existing donors. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Robert, > >> yeah, I would listed the person next to the feature (as we do now), >> and then add a section to the bottom noting "companies who >> contributed to this release include:" and then have a list of >> companies. Personally I don't think it would be that bad, and might >> encourage companies to sponsor more work. But if no one else thinks >> so, no worries, was just an idea. > > I don't think it's an inconceivable idea. However, I do think that > the corporate sponsors would be more pleased by a relatively complete > set of sponsor listings on www.postgresql.org. > > --Josh +1 (speaking as a corporate sponsor). Even better if its ranked by donation amount (if someone is looking for donor PR, then they can donate more to get more...) -- Chander Ganesan Open Technology Group, Inc. One Copley Parkway, Suite 210 Morrisville, NC 27560 919-463-0999/877-258-8987 http://www.otg-nc.com