On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> (I note that the proposal to have the CFM review everything is merely >> one way of meeting the need to have senior people spend more time >> reviewing. But I assure all of you that I spend as much time >> reviewing as I can find time for. If someone wants to pay me the same >> salary I'm making now to do nothing but review patches, I'll think >> about it. But even then, that would also mean that I wasn't spending >> time writing patches of my own.) > > I have heard the idea of a "cross-company PostgreSQL foundation" of some > sort that would hire a developer just to manage commitfests, do patch > reviews, apply bugfixes, etc, without the obligations that come from > individual companies' schedules for particular development roadmaps, > customer support, and the like. Of course, only a senior person would > be able to fill this role because it requires considerable experience. > > Probably this person should be allowed to work on their own patches if > they so desire; otherwise there is a risk that experience dilutes. > Also, no single company should dictate what this person's priorities > are, other than general guidelines: general stability, submitted patches > get attention, bugs get closed, releases get out, coffee gets brewed.
Yeah, that would be great, and even better if we could get 2 or 3 positions funded so that the success or failure isn't too much tied to a single individual. But even getting 1 position funded in a stable-enough fashion that someone would be willing to bet on it seems like a challenge. (Maybe other people here are less risk-averse than I am.) -- 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