I posted a message a little over a week ago discussing the timetable for 8.5:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg01576.php That thread went off on a number of interesting tangents which I found pretty informative. Probably the most interesting one to me personally was about a need for more efficient decision-making. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg02149.php It's interesting to note that the original purpose of this thread was to get a decision about the timetable for 8.5 development, and that of the original responses to that message only one person (Peter) expression a clear opinion about the topic in question. Everyone else, so far as I can see, said some variant of "on the one hand... but then on the other hand...". Eventually, Josh Berkus retracted his original endorsement for the 3-CF plan and suggested that we go with four. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg01651.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg01983.php Josh's schedule was subsequently endorsed by Simon Riggs. So by my count we now have four votes for a 4-CF schedule and one for a 3-CF schedule (me), maybe two if you count Tom, who I think was leaning in that direction - so I guess that settles the matter? I think this is a good illustration of the problems with decision-making in a community environment - given choices "3" and "4" most of the votes were somewhere between "3.25" and "3.75". I think, in general, that when people weigh in with clear opinions, we're pretty good about moving in the direction that most people want to go. Even two votes can be enough for a consensus, if they both go in the same direction. However, when the responses aren't clearly in favor of one option or the other, or when no-one writes back at all, I think we tend to flounder. It's worth thinking about how we could improve this. I think the ideas that were floated on the previous thread of having a beta-mom and/or an open-items-fest are good ones, and we might want to have both: someone to work with beta testers, and someone to coordinate volunteers to propose solutions to the open items. Those proposals are specific to getting a release out the door, though, and that may not be the only context in which this problem comes up. Still, it's a start - any other ideas? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
