On Sunday, September 18, 2011, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On fre, 2011-09-16 at 08:59 -0500, Dave Page wrote: >> You're missing my point completely. You say you represent PostgreSQL >> on the SQL Committee (or German working group, but that's not the >> point), yet the PostgreSQL hackers didn't know that, and were making >> other plans less than 2 years ago. For me, a representative would have >> been reporting back to us after each meeting, and discussing points to >> raise before each meeting - not working in isolation, without the >> knowledge of others. > > Let's not get into legalese. I don't think Susanne's point was the she > was the sole and authoritative representative of the project. An > alternative way to phrase this might be that she has been the only > participant in committee meetings that has had PostgreSQL's concerns on > her mind.
That is much more reasonable, though unfortunately not what was said. Regardless, I stand by my main point that such a representative should be communicating with the project regularly. Having a rep who works outside the project is of no use at all. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
