On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera<alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Joshua D. Drake escribió: >> On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 12:50 -0700, Selena Deckelmann wrote: >> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Heikki >> > Linnakangas<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> > >> > > That implies that we need a release manager. Electing one would be the >> > > first step. That's a lot of work and responsibility, with lots of >> > > potential for making people cross, so in practice I think as soon as >> > > someone steps up to the plate and volunteers to do it, he's the one. >> > > >> > > I'm very happy with the way you ran the first commitfest. Thank you. >> > > Want to manage the rest as well? >> > >> > +1 on both points. >> >> Isn't "core" supposed to be the release manager? > > Core is a decision-making committee. A release manager is a person, > maybe two, but a committee doesn't work (unless they'd split up tasks in > tickets and have them assigned etc, but I don't see -core doing that.)
Previous emails from Tom seem to indicate that the mandate of -core is mostly to decide things like the timing of releases. If we gave that job to somebody else, would there be anything left for -core to do? If so, what? And on the flip side, it is precisely because of the lack of a clear statement on release timing from -core that we're having these discussions here on -hackers. Personally, I think that's better, since -core is a private list (why?) to which most of us don't have access, and I don't see any reason why decisions like this can't be made in public. The only -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
