> We as developers do not need mission statements, per se' but it is often useful > as something to point to.
It's comforting and useful to point to; in addition, developers work on something because of personal "itches" (to coin a phrase) that happen to broadly overlap with the group > IMHO, if we can come up with a strong, positive statement, it would help MBA > trained CIOs and CTOs choose PostgreSQL. To them, it will show a professional > minded development group, it will be recognizable to them. I think this is an excellent point, especially since I'd say that one of the implicit goals of the PG project is for the database to be *used* ;) - and the corporate world in some form or another represents probably the largest user base. This reasoning is a bit dicey b/c playing PR games really isn't fun after the initial rush, and I don't think anyone really wants catering to the corporate world to be first and foremost in their minds. To this end, if a mission statement is adopted, it should probably be a very dynamic document that remains capable of both engaging CIOs/CTOs and intriguing developers as the vision and the landscape change. A mission statement that is agonized over (and takes time away from development), finally adopted, and then allowed to become obsolete does PG no good. Should you guys hold a vote to see who wants a mission statement (and who wants to write one or compile all the suggestions here into a nice form) and then work from there? I'm not exactly familiar with the procedures here. thanks for listening to my rambling, Michael Locasto ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
