I think it is part of the incentive for corporations to contribute - not
just an impressive list for PHB. It's nice to get the recognition for
their time/money contributions and a good way for the PGDG to show their
appreciation.
-r
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 14:34, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Peter,
>
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 07 November 2003 17:37
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Peter Eisentraut; Josh Berkus;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:17:12AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
> > That'd be cool for me, but what 'main PostgreSQL web site' are you
> > talking about? Is this www.postgresql.org? Or advocacy.postgresql.org?
> > Or maybe it'd be developer.postgresql.org?
>
> I think everyone agrees w
Alvaro,
> That'd be cool for me, but what 'main PostgreSQL web site' are you
> talking about? Is this www.postgresql.org? Or advocacy.postgresql.org?
> Or maybe it'd be developer.postgresql.org?
I think everyone agrees with the idea of unifying www, advocacy, and
developer. Techdocs and Gborg
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:12:50AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> You: I want to spend an hour a day at work on PostgreSQL
> community work.
> Boss: Hmm. (How do I justify this?)
> You: Our company will be listed on the main PostgreSQL web
> site.
>
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:24:04AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Maybe a "developer of the month" feature. :-)
It would be quite cool if, say, General Bits could ocassionaly carry an
interview with a Postgres developer.
(Now that would be a mess to translate)
--
Alvaro Herrera ()
"Linux transf
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:57:12PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > True, but for that you're looking at the wrong list. This is the list of
> > contributors, not of users.
>
> I tend to agree with that. Maybe the trick is to talk about
> "featured users" or somet
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:57:12PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> True, but for that you're looking at the wrong list. This is the list of
> contributors, not of users.
I tend to agree with that. Maybe the trick is to talk about
"featured users" or something? I dunno, I keep trying to keep
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:08:57PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > I think that list is a pretty dumb idea in the first place. We have a
> > list of developers with company names next to them. Let readers make
> > their own recognition evaluation.
>
> I'm not sur
Imagine this discussion with your boss:
You: I want to spend an hour a day at work on PostgreSQL
community work.
Boss: Hmm. (How do I justify this?)
You: Our company will be listed on the main PostgreSQL web
site.
Boss: Fine. (That g
Josh Berkus writes:
> But it does! You pointed it out yourself for the hackers & OSS tech
> people, they can just look at the descriptions of the major contributors and
> figure things out for themselves. They don't need a list with company logos
> & links.
Other people have pointed out
Peter,
> Hence my original point: the list of supporting companies
> does not primarily belong in the advocacy realm.
But it does! You pointed it out yourself for the hackers & OSS tech
people, they can just look at the descriptions of the major contributors and
figure things out for the
Josh Berkus writes:
> Yes? That's exactly the intention -- so that existing users and interested
> parties can see the companies that give major resources to the project.
Yes, but existing users and most interested parties don't fall into the
PHB category, nor do most PHB's fall into the existi
Andrew Sullivan writes:
> I'm not sure that's all it's for. Every time we talk about using
> Postgres, people want to know who else uses it.
True, but for that you're looking at the wrong list. This is the list of
contributors, not of users.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Peter,
> Right now, the list is nothing more than a
> marketing tool for the listed companies for attracting existing users to
> them.
Yes? That's exactly the intention -- so that existing users and interested
parties can see the companies that give major resources to the project.
This has
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:08:57PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I think that list is a pretty dumb idea in the first place. We have a
list of developers with company names next to them. Let readers make
their own recognition evaluation.
Your assuming that peopl
Hello,
My feeling is that advocacy should be just that: Advocacy.
It doesn't matter who the intended audience is in reality. However,
it is also important to remember that technical experts typically
don't need to be sold on PostgreSQL.
PHBs on the other hand probably do and thus much of our
Adv
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:08:57PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> I think that list is a pretty dumb idea in the first place. We have a
> list of developers with company names next to them. Let readers make
> their own recognition evaluation.
I'm not sure that's all it's for. Every time we
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that list is a pretty dumb idea in the first place. We have a
> list of developers with company names next to them. Let readers make
> their own recognition evaluation.
That works if you think that the only form of corporate support is
spons
Josh Berkus writes:
> > > I was discussing specifically the "Recognized Corporate Contributors" which
> > > is, AFAIK, strictly a PHB thing, no?
> >
> > No.
>
> Please explain.
I don't see anything in this project that should be strictly a PHB thing,
the exception maybe being the weird whitepaper
20 matches
Mail list logo
