On 05/13/2016 12:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com>
Hey, if I am wrong that's awesome. The impression I have is the general
workflow is this:
The difference being one of coopetition versions competition for the
betterment of the community. If there are companies that are doing that
already, that is awesome and I applaud it. I was just trying to further
drive that idea home.
I think that's already happening. I'm happy to see more of it. In
practical terms, though, it's harder to collaborate between companies
because then you need two management teams to be on-board with it, and
there can be other competing priorities.
Yep, that's true.
If either company needs to
pull staff of a project because of some competing priority (say,
fixing a broken customer or addressing an urgent customer need), then
the whole project can stall. The whole wagon train moves at the pace
of the slowest camel. It's nice when we can collaborate across
companies and I'm all for it, but sometimes it's faster to for a
single company to just assign a couple of people to a project and tell
them to go do it.
Now, where this gets tricky is when it comes down to whether the
end-product of that effort is something the community wants. We all
need to be careful not to make our corporate priorities into community
priorities. Features shouldn't get committed without a consensus that
they are both useful and well-implemented, and prior discussion is a
good way to achieve that. On the whole, I think we've done reasonably
well in this area. There is often disagreement but in the end I think
usually end up in a place that is good for PostgreSQL. Hopefully that
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: