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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
