"David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes:
> I think M. Fetter is completely wrong. If people are rethinking
> whether they should volunteer based on whether other people are being
> funded for their time to review patches, we don't want such people
> around anyway. Let them leave.
I can see his concern though: we have to be very careful to avoid
establishing perverse incentives.
The larger picture is that quite a few people are paid to work on
Postgres already --- me, for instance. That doesn't seem to have
discouraged other people from working on it on their own time. But
I'm not paid according to how many bugs I find, and wouldn't want
to be.
I don't have a problem with funding people to work on Postgres.
We just have to be careful that the grants aren't set up in a way
that might encourage people to game the system.
I'm also not sure that "review a patch" is a well-chosen specific goal
to have here, especially not for people who've not been around the
project at all. It's hard enough for people who *do* have a lot of
context to do useful reviews.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
