a) More software can make use of your good name and reputation.
That's rather dangerous, don't you think ? If PostgreSQL proper (eg the core server) wants to keep its good name it better make sure it is bundled with "good" "add-ons". And that would require precisely the additional workload that several core people have explained they must avoid in order to be able to focus on the core engine to keep its good reputation. So, unless people outside the core team take up the task it won't happen. And if they do - what's the difference to the current state of affairs ?
I see you point and I don't disagree. But let me give you a different view.
When I look at the current state of affairs, I see a PostgreSQL name that, in spite of very skilled people, great technology, a very vibrant community, and IMO a golden opportunity, is held back by a fear (well grounded, no doubt) that growth will increase the workload and thus make it harder to maintain the core engine.
I'm not an advocate of commercial packaging, nor packaging performed by "outsiders" and I don't think packages bundled with operating systems is a great idea either. I'm a fan of free open source and I think the way to archive growth is to appeal to more sponsors. More sponsors equals more resources. More resources, if handled correctly, could both make PostgreSQL grow *and* lessen the workload for the core developers.
I really like Jan Wiecks suggestion. To me that sounds like the way to get started. Recommended add-ons will feel a lot "safer" to the end users and it will give some perception of growth. I'd like to help out and I'm perhaps able to put in a couple of hours a week. Maybe there's more people out there that would like to help? If not for any other cause, then maybe to promote their own product. In so, we need to be coordinated. Preferably by someone from "within".
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
