Just a reflection from someone who has not been following PostgreSQL that long...
I think you provide excellent leadership and keep a firm grip on the core PostgreSQL server. Moving stuff out to Gborg and the discussion regarding contrib tells me that you want to keep it that way. As I'm a firm beliver in separation of concern and modularization, I really like that move. The server group must concentrate on the server. PosgreSQL is much more than just a server though. Something can be done that would bring order to the current chaos and make the fragementation a positive thing. What I think is needed is an architecture that goes beyond the server. An architecture endorsed by the PostgreSQL. It would of course include the semantics needed to create and link a plugin but it wouldn't stop there. A very important feature would be packaging and deployment (installers etc.). Another would be administration. The architecture I have in mind *must* be endorsed and controlled by PostgreSQL. It cannot be delivered by a freestanding group. Still, it's not core server stuff. This is the means by which PostgreSQL would (re)gain leadership of the whole thing. You don't need managers, you need a broader component architecure. My perception is that you need to somehow fork your efforts and look beyond the core server horizon. A don't think it's too late. I'm convinced that everyone that creates products that integrates with PostgreSQL would be more than happy to comply (and make additions to) a common architecture if it would help PostgreSQL to get a wider acceptance. In short, You have a great leverage. It's just a matter of using it the right way. Kind regards, Thomas Hallgren "Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If we want to make PostgreSQL a wildly popular product, there will be > > some pain. There should be a "Product Management" group. The > > leader(s) of this group should be chosen carefully, as he (they) must > > be free to define what PostgreSQL is. They must have a good feel for > > product development and understanding of the underlying technology, > > but not be so techie that we don't address the issues intended. They > > must be able to rally the troops and direct development efforts. > > Lastly, he (they) must have the confidence of the core hackers, as it > > is likely that there will be disagreements with the direction of > > PostgreSQL, and it wouldn't work if "Product Management" couldn't > > actually manage what the product was because nobody listened. > > I agree with this, more or less. The lack of leadership that > coordinates all activities actively is really missing. Unfortunately, > I believe we are already in a state of fragmentation where setting up > something like this is no longer possible. What the end user sees as a > PostgreSQL system is brought to them by nearly a dozen different groups > nowadays. And the server group can no longer count on having a > stronger position to pull them all together. The only option to > achieve what you want soon is to market your own product. > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
