On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 04:27:41PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Hello, > > In a possible moment of insanity, in > > <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-09/msg00579.php> > > I volunteered to try to help solve a problem Tom Lane noted: "The > hard part of this problem is finding a convenient way to capture > status data out of the community's conversations." I observed > that companies who do this well actually employ people to do that > sort of thing, and that this might be a way for code morons like > yours truly to make a contribution to development. > > I've been struggling since then, trying to figure out where to start. > There are a _lot_ of discussions on -hackers, and many of them are > blind alleys. Moreover, I can't summarise everything, I don't think, > and still make any of those summaries sufficiently detailed to allow > them to be useful. So I have a proposal. > > I was thinking of tracking 3 or 4 such discussions in the next > release cycle, as a kind of proof of concept. I'm willing to do > that, but I'd need guidance from those who are trying to produce a > complicated feature, telling me that they need the support. > Therefore, if someone involved in some such discussion pokes me > saying, "Follow this thread, please", I'll follow the thread in > question (as well as follow-up discussions that come of it), and > produce regular (weekly?) summaries of what I take to be the state of > the collective mind, until such time as the code supporting the > feature is checked in and agreed to. Then, at release time, the > developers can evaluate whether the tracking produced few surprises > at the end (and, perhaps, less thrash), or whether the experiment did > not provide any benefit. If it does, we can see whether we can make > this sort of thing scale by adding some additional volunteers to do a > similar job in future. > > Does that seem worth doing?
ISTM that it would be important to do that on threads/ideas that end up getting 'lost', which means you'll never get a cry for help. Though looking out for controversial threads might work... -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend