Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 6:13 PM, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Momjian
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > if the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after
> Great
> > Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the company
> dies
> > too
OK, based on this feedback and others, I have made a new version of the
article:
http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/company_contributions/
There are no new concepts, just a more balance article with some of the
awkward wording improved. I also added a link to the article from the
dev
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In a humble, non-confrontational tone: Why/How does a patch imply a fait
> accompli, or show any disrespect?
Well depending on the circumstances it could show the poster isn't interested
in the judgement of the existing code authors. It can be hard to
Guido Barosio wrote:
>
> "Companies often bring fresh prespective, ideas, and testing
> infrastucture to a project."
>
>
> "prespective" || "perspective" ?
Thanks, fixed.
---
>
> g.-
>
>
> On 12/21/06, Kevin Grittner
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 00:29 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:40:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > > I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that
> > > the community is also often "miffed" if they feel they have been
> > > l
"Companies often bring fresh prespective, ideas, and testing
infrastucture to a project."
"prespective" || "perspective" ?
g.-
On 12/21/06, Kevin Grittner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 6:13 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 6:13 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after
Great
> Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the company
dies
> too.
This statement seems to ignore org
The paper is a good one, from my perspective. It does address important
issues and maybe we don't all agree on the exact places lines have been
drawn, but I think we probably do agree that these things need to be
said. Now that they have been said, we must allow reasonable time for
the understandin
David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:40:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that
> > > the community is also often "miffed" if they feel they have been
> > > left out of the des
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:40:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that
> > the community is also often "miffed" if they feel they have been
> > left out of the design and testing phases. This is so
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> I remember the president of Great Bridge
> > >> saying that the company needs the community, but not visa-vera --- if
> > >>
On 12/19/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The article assumes healthy open source communities, not open source
communities that are offshoots or parasites of commercial companies.
Assumptions are many times incorrect. Similarly, I wouldn't disregard
an open source community just be
On 12/19/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ingres is opensource again yes. http://www.ingres.com/ .
Yep.
> I'm not aware of too many more. Like I said, if you want to establish
> this as the typical case, name ten examples.
We could also mention all the Ingres-based offshoots
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 23:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So, I suppose you can give us ten examples of thriving companies based
> >> on private forks of dead open-source projects?
>
> > MySQL? (so
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So, I suppose you can give us ten examples of thriving companies based
>> on private forks of dead open-source projects?
> MySQL? (sorry couldn't resist).
Uh, no, because that was never a genuine
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> I remember the president of Great Bridge
> > >> saying that the company needs the community, but not visa-vera --- if
> > >> the company dies, the community keeps goi
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 12/19/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> if the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after Great
> >> Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the comp
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/19/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> if the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after Great
>> Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the company dies
>> too.
> However, in regard to a dying community
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> The title of the document, "How Companies Can Effectively Contribute
> To Open Source Communities" doesn't seem to fit the content. I would
> consider something more along the lines of, "Enterprise Open Source:
> Effectively Contributing Commercial Support to Open Source
The article assumes healthy open source communities, not open source
communities that are offshoots or parasites of commercial companies.
The article title, "How Companies Can Effectively Contribute To Open
Source Communities" itself assumes that because the company is
contributing to the communi
> > >
> > > I do think I need to add a more generous outreach to companies in the
> > > article, explaining how valuable they are to the community, so let me
> > > work on that and I will post when I have an update.
> >
> > Cool, that is what I was really looking for.
>
> Yes, the original was
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
As this document is supposed to be factual, I'd really like not to get
into a war over lines-of-code development rates vs. bugs, quality (or
lack thereof), etc. The *fact* is, some commercial software companies
could easily churn out more, better quality code, if they ch
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> In one fails swoop:
>
ITYM "fell swoop". see http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-fel1.htm
cheers
a
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
> In one fails swoop:
Sorry a beer and email just doesn't mix. The above should be one fell
swoop.
>
> Devrim, Alvaro, Darcy, Heikki, Bruce, Simon, Greg, Dave, Marc and I are
> all suddenly looking for employment...
>
> You don't think there would be an issue that could cause some grief to
> t
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > I remember the president of Great Bridge
> > saying that the company needs the community, but not visa-vera --- if
> > the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after Great
> > Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the company dies
> > too.
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I remember the president of Great Bridge
> >> saying that the company needs the community, but not visa-vera --- if
> >> the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after Great
> >> Br
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I remember the president of Great Bridge
>> saying that the company needs the community, but not visa-vera --- if
>> the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after Great
>> Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the compa
On 12/19/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This actually brings up an important distinction. Joshua is saying that
the community is painted as "god" in the article, and I agree there is a
basis for that, but I don't think you can consider the community and
company as equals either.
> > > > The community could learn a great deal from adopting some of the more
> > > > common business practices when it comes to development as well.
> > > >
> > > > In short, I guess I think it is important to recognize that both are
> > > > partners in the open source world and that to ignore on
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 09:51 +1300, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
> > On 12/20/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > O.k. in all Bruce I like your article but I must admit it seems to take
> > > a "The community is god" perspective and that we must all bend to
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that the
> community is also often "miffed" if they feel they have been left out of
> the design and testing phases. This is sometimes just a reflex that is
> not always based on technical reasoning.
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 16:30 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > I think my overall thought is the tone seems a bit non-gracious to
> > companies, when IMO the community should be actively courting companies
> > to give resources. If companies feel unwelcome, they won't giv
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 10:27 +1300, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
> On 12/20/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think my overall thought is the tone seems a bit non-gracious to
> > companies, when IMO the community should be actively courting companies
> > to give resources. If compa
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think my overall thought is the tone seems a bit non-gracious to
companies, when IMO the community should be actively courting companies
to give resources. If companies feel unwelcome, they won't give.
I have not been following closely. But IMNSHO we should be stre
On 12/20/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think my overall thought is the tone seems a bit non-gracious to
companies, when IMO the community should be actively courting companies
to give resources. If companies feel unwelcome, they won't give.
I appreciate that, but then Bruce'
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 09:51 +1300, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
> On 12/20/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > O.k. in all Bruce I like your article but I must admit it seems to take
> > a "The community is god" perspective and that we must all bend to the
> > will of said community.
On 12/20/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
O.k. in all Bruce I like your article but I must admit it seems to take
a "The community is god" perspective and that we must all bend to the
will of said community.
I'm not really in a position to judge how a company thinks about
"donatin
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
O.k. in all Bruce I like your article but I must admit it seems to take
a "The community is god" perspective and that we must all bend to the
will of said community.
The community could learn a great deal from adopting some of the more
common business practices when it co
Hello,
O.k. below are some comments. Your article although well written has a
distinct, from the community perspective ;) and I think there are some
points from the business side that are missed.
---
Employees working in open source communities have two bosses -- the
companies that employ them, a
Hi,
I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that the
community is also often "miffed" if they feel they have been left out of
the design and testing phases. This is sometimes just a reflex that is
not always based on technical reasoning. Its just that as you correctly
poi
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On 12/20/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Fixed, thanks.
> >
>
> Follwing statement seems to be a bit mangled:
>
> then when company('s?) needs diverge, going *it*(?) alone, then returning to
> the community process at some later time.
Thanks, clarified.
On 12/20/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fixed, thanks.
Follwing statement seems to be a bit mangled:
then when company('s?) needs diverge, going *it*(?) alone, then returning to
the community process at some later time.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail |
Fixed, thanks.
---
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On 12/20/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback, sectioning fixed.
> >
>
> Spelling mistake:
>
> because they have gone though a company proce
On 12/20/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, sectioning fixed.
Spelling mistake:
because they have gone though a company process
to
because they have gone *through* a company process
Regards,
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail | yahoo
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 13:38 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 12:11 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I have written an article about the complexities of companies
> > > contributing to open source projects:
> > >
> > > http://momjian.us/main/writings
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 12:11 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have written an article about the complexities of companies
> > contributing to open source projects:
> >
> > http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/company_contributions/
> >
> > If you have any suggestions
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 12:11 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have written an article about the complexities of companies
> contributing to open source projects:
>
> http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/company_contributions/
>
> If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I am going t
47 matches
Mail list logo
