Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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, I was discussing specifically the Recognized Corporate Contributors which is, AFAIK, strictly a PHB thing, no? No. Please explain. -- Ryan Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 gives me a legitimate business purpose.) This is why listing companies/individuals is good for several reasons, and this is one of them. --- Peter Eisentraut wrote: 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 that this is not really sufficient. So if there is to be a separate company list, then it should be next to the individuals list. This is important because we've (people on the Advocacy list) briefly discussed expanding this page to cover companies which, in the future, make *financial* contributions to PostgreSQL ... sort of a corporate donors page. This works very well in standard nonprofit fundraising; the project gets $, and the donors get publicity. Obviously, contributors would have to be categorized, but that's an issue for when we're ready to set it up. When we're ready. But we're not. But then again, this sort of list would mostly be of use to existing users, in the sense, They support a project I like, so I like them. You could only really make use of that for attracting potential users if you could make a clear case the the amount of donations is sufficient to guarantee any kind of longevity of the project. I think that will be hard to do (because there is, in fact, absolutely no relation). But hopefully, by the time we've arrived there, this silly web site fragmentation will be over and this question will be moot. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (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 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 sure that's all it's for. Every time we talk about using Postgres, people want to know who else uses it. It's really strange, but for some reason, people seem to believe that a product isn't any good unless a large number of people are already using it, and that it _is_ good if a large number of people do use it. (I guess the idea is that all those Windows users can't be wrong. Oh, wait. . .) You have heard the term first adopters. These people want to be second adopters. :-) -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (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 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 the points off my hair. A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 something? I dunno, I keep trying to keep the points off my hair. Maybe a developer of the month feature. :-) -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (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 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 (alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl) Linux transformó mi computadora, de una `máquina para hacer cosas', en un aparato realmente entretenido, sobre el cual cada día aprendo algo nuevo (Jaime Salinas) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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. Boss: Fine. (That gives me a legitimate business purpose.) 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 really think they should be unified. Any developer here really thinks that developer things _have_ to be apart? -- Alvaro Herrera (alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl) No hay hombre que no aspire a la plenitud, es decir, la suma de experiencias de que un hombre es capaz ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 will stay seperate becuase they're based on different technology. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 with the idea of unifying www, advocacy, and developer. Techdocs and Gborg will stay seperate becuase they're based on different technology. Cool. I thought I had understand otherwise on a mail from Robert Treat. Sorry for the confusion. -- Alvaro Herrera (alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl) La rebeldía es la virtud original del hombre (Arthur Schopenhauer) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
-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 List I really think they should be unified. Any developer here really thinks that developer things _have_ to be apart? One reason for doing so is that that box is where the developers have their user accounts, thus allowing them to create their own pages for sub projects that they work on such as http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/. I always wanted to make the site into more of a developer portal, just never got around to it... Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 someone is going to write sometime. Anything else is intended for a greatly diverse audience, who may be engineers or decision makers, who may be technically incompetent, technically open-minded, or technical experts, and who may or may not have varying degrees of clues about open source, databases, and PostgreSQL. In other words, the general public. If you disagree, then maybe we should split up into advocacy-for-phbs and advocacy-for-real-people groups. Moreover, you seem to imply that the list of companies should primarily be a marketing instrument of the PostgreSQL project for attracting new users. I don't understand that. I would understand it if the list contained a large number of big names, but it does not, and it is not set up to strive for that goal. Right now, the list is nothing more than a marketing tool for the listed companies for attracting existing users to them. 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. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 sponsoring a developer. Seems to me that's a bit narrow-minded. For instance, hub.org is contributing (by providing hosting services) way more than you might think from the number of times it appears on the developer list... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 talk about using Postgres, people want to know who else uses it. It's really strange, but for some reason, people seem to believe that a product isn't any good unless a large number of people are already using it, and that it _is_ good if a large number of people do use it. (I guess the idea is that all those Windows users can't be wrong. Oh, wait. . .) A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 Advocacy work should be geared towards them. I believe one place where we are particularly week is PostgreSQL versus MySQL. We should have mountains of dead tree printables on why you should use PostgreSQL and why you shouldn't use mySQL. This can be done in a non-flammatory way. Sincerely, Joshua Drake Peter Eisentraut wrote: 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 someone is going to write sometime. Anything else is intended for a greatly diverse audience, who may be engineers or decision makers, who may be technically incompetent, technically open-minded, or technical experts, and who may or may not have varying degrees of clues about open source, databases, and PostgreSQL. In other words, the general public. If you disagree, then maybe we should split up into advocacy-for-phbs and advocacy-for-real-people groups. Moreover, you seem to imply that the list of companies should primarily be a marketing instrument of the PostgreSQL project for attracting new users. I don't understand that. I would understand it if the list contained a large number of big names, but it does not, and it is not set up to strive for that goal. Right now, the list is nothing more than a marketing tool for the listed companies for attracting existing users to them. 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. -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 people are intelligent. In general they are not. In general people want to see that Cisco, Afilias, RedHat, ACS etc... use PostgreSQL. They want graphics, they want teddy bears. J 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. It's really strange, but for some reason, people seem to believe that a product isn't any good unless a large number of people are already using it, and that it _is_ good if a large number of people do use it. (I guess the idea is that all those Windows users can't be wrong. Oh, wait. . .) A -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org ---(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
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 a dual purpose: it both provides free advertising for the companies as a tit-for-tat, and shows potential adopters that PostgreSQL is not 100% hobby developers coding in their free time. 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. You seem pretty opposed to the corporate list given that one of your co-workers just requested to be on it. To paraphrase one of my friends who works for an ad agency: Peter, we're not advertising to YOU.That page is not there for you or for people like you. It is there for IT department managers, PHBs, people considering PostgreSQL, and people looking for high-end paid support. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 existing users or interested parties category, nor do most existing users fall into the group that one advocates to. Hence my original point: the list of supporting companies does not primarily belong in the advocacy realm. You seem pretty opposed to the corporate list given that one of your co-workers just requested to be on it. Well, if there must be a list, then why not be on it? :-) It is there for IT department managers, PHBs, people considering PostgreSQL, and people looking for high-end paid support. Great, that's exactly what I wanted to hear. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 themselves. They don't need a list with company logos links. This is important because we've (people on the Advocacy list) briefly discussed expanding this page to cover companies which, in the future, make *financial* contributions to PostgreSQL ... sort of a corporate donors page. This works very well in standard nonprofit fundraising; the project gets $, and the donors get publicity. Obviously, contributors would have to be categorized, but that's an issue for when we're ready to set it up. It is there for IT department managers, PHBs, people considering PostgreSQL, and people looking for high-end paid support. Great, that's exactly what I wanted to hear. I can't tell over e-mail whether you're agreeing with me or being sarcastic. Clue? -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Changes to Contributor List
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 that this is not really sufficient. So if there is to be a separate company list, then it should be next to the individuals list. This is important because we've (people on the Advocacy list) briefly discussed expanding this page to cover companies which, in the future, make *financial* contributions to PostgreSQL ... sort of a corporate donors page. This works very well in standard nonprofit fundraising; the project gets $, and the donors get publicity. Obviously, contributors would have to be categorized, but that's an issue for when we're ready to set it up. When we're ready. But we're not. But then again, this sort of list would mostly be of use to existing users, in the sense, They support a project I like, so I like them. You could only really make use of that for attracting potential users if you could make a clear case the the amount of donations is sufficient to guarantee any kind of longevity of the project. I think that will be hard to do (because there is, in fact, absolutely no relation). But hopefully, by the time we've arrived there, this silly web site fragmentation will be over and this question will be moot. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
