Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >>We don't want core to steer development anymore than we want a > >>centralized group to do that, because if we did, the next company > >>that comes along and wants to enhance PostgreSQL or offer technical > >>support services will feel they have to get approval/buy-in from > >>the _in_ group, and that isn't a productive setup. The fact that > >>new companies getting involved can't find a central authority is a > >>_good_ thing, if you think about it. It means that we have succeeded > >>in building a community that allows people to join and feel a part > >>right away, and they don't have to buy-in or play politics to do it. > > > > > > Well, you make Postgres sound like a very democratic community, but > > I'm afraid this is a fairy tale. Aren't the people who approve > > patches exactly the in group that you claim doesn't exist? > > PostgreSQL is more of Democratic Republic than an actual democracy but > they do very well at it. > > Any person can bring a patch and submit it, any person in the community > can argue for it and any person can take the time to fix it to the > specifications that core sets forth.
True, but I don't think "core" sets the specifications. Rather, it is the community that sets them, or agrees to them by not saying anything. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
