Dave Held wrote: > Well, you make Postgres sound like a very democratic community, but > I'm afraid this is a fairy tale. Aren't the people who approve > patches exactly the in group that you claim doesn't exist? Aren't > they the people that you need buy-in from to really contribute to > Postgres? The reason I make this point is because I know what a > democratic development community really looks like, and the Boost > community is one such example. That truly *is* democratic, because > decisions are made as a group, and no fixed subset of members has > an overriding veto. The group has moderators, but they exist only > to moderate discussion on the mailing lists. I'm not saying that > it is bad that Postgres is not democratic. Postgres is a totally > different kind of beast than Boost, and probably benefits from > having a few people ultimately decide its fate. But let's call a > spade a spade and not pretend that contributors don't have to get > buy-in from core.
Really? You have a different perspective than I see. I have seen patches be accepted that had no core buy-in. We accept patches based on group feedback, not some closed approval process. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (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])
