On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Joshua Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> Ultimately, we're herding cats here. I don't think you're going to >> get >> the community to suddenly be willing to march in lockstep instead. > > If you, Peter, Simon, Robert, Heikki, Magnus, Peter G., Greg, Bruce and > Andrew agreed on a calendar-driven, mostly unambiguous process and adhered to > that process, then the one or two people who didn't follow along wouldn't > matter. Everyone else would follow you. The reason things are chaotic now > is that our lead committers do not have consensus and are even inconsistent > from CF to CF individually. > > In other words: the problem is only unsolvable because *you* think it's > unsolvable. If you decide the problem is solvable, you already have the > means to solve it.
That's a somewhat bizarre list of people. It both includes people who haven't expressed many concerns about our process one way or the other and excludes some who have. At any rate, clearly the problem is exactly that there isn't consensus on this. I would generally say that Tom, Greg Smith, and I are pretty close together on this issue, and Peter G., Simon, and Dimitri are pretty close together on this issue, but with a big gap in between those two groups. I am less clear on how everyone else feels, but I think that saying that "all we need" is to get consensus among those people is to define the problem, not the solution. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
