> I think ideally our role is one of cat herders, as you put it ---
> making the kinds of decisions that a group of dozens or hundreds
> can't make effectively. But the long-term direction of the project
> is largely determined by what the individual CVS committers choose to
> work on. In that s
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Philip Warner wrote:
>
> > The fear is that this may distort other priorities - hence why
> > increased transparency in decision making is important. If Bruce, Tom
> > & Jan make a design decision, then chances are it's going to be pretty
> > good. The problem is it will/ma
> > At 22:12 13/10/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > >The majority of core discussions are closed because either we need to
> > >decide on a central direction for the project (release date)
> >
> > These are the things that you should consider making more transparent.
> >
> > >or we need
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So, I am really saying that core doesn't do much. You non-core folks
>> aren't missing anything.
> Yeah, that's what you say in public ... There is no cabal!
It's true that very little goes on on the private core mailing list,
and we try to kee
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Philip Warner wrote:
> The fear is that this may distort other priorities - hence why
> increased transparency in decision making is important. If Bruce, Tom
> & Jan make a design decision, then chances are it's going to be pretty
> good. The problem is it will/may be seen as
> At 22:12 13/10/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >The majority of core discussions are closed because either we need to
> >decide on a central direction for the project (release date)
>
> These are the things that you should consider making more transparent.
>
> >or we need
> >to discuss s
At 22:12 13/10/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>The majority of core discussions are closed because either we need to
>decide on a central direction for the project (release date)
These are the things that you should consider making more transparent.
>or we need
>to discuss something that woul
> At 16:10 13/10/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >So, I am really saying that core doesn't do much. You non-core folks
> >aren't missing anything.
> >
>
> The issue here is transparency: doing the right thing as well as being seen
> to do the right thing.
>
> When someone devotes hours of
On 13 Oct 2000, Gunnar R|nning wrote:
> "Adam Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > May bad... sometimes it is too easy assuming everything open source is GPL.
> >
>
> > > > correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on
>
> Of course both lincenses can be the basis
"Adam Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> May bad... sometimes it is too easy assuming everything open source is GPL.
>
> > > correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on
Of course both lincenses can be the basis of propriatery efforts(GPL and
Apache(BSD style licens
> Systems Engineer
> Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lamar Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Adam Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:17 AM
> Su
TECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job
> Adam Lang wrote:
> > (Actually, under GPL, any modifications of the code have to be free
also,
> > correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on
that
&
Adam Lang wrote:
> (Actually, under GPL, any modifications of the code have to be free also,
> correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on that
> is private... but then postgres can be run and compiled without it).
PostgreSQL is not under the GPL. PostgreSQL has (and
m Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Adam Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job
> I can say with a good
"Matthew N. Dodd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The one place where GB can get burned is if they spend lots of time/money
> implementing a feature and then attempt to recoup their investment by
> holding said feature back from the PGSQL source tree.
I can say with a good deal of confidence that t
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Adam Lang wrote:
> Ah but remember... what is a "better RDBMS" to a company may be
> different than one for the open source community.
I'm not sure I see that...
The one place where GB can get burned is if they spend lots of time/money
implementing a feature and then attempt
>
> Bottom line is we're not sure what to do now. Opinions from the
> floor, anyone?
>
>From the lowly end of the floor... for what I am concerned, I'm not
worried about the involvment of the core team. Instead, I'm happy
that companies like GB and Postgres Inc have been founded.
I'm not a
> Gunnar R|nning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> more in voliation of the original plan.
>
> > violation ? Or is this just another gap in my knowledge of the English
> > language ?
>
> You're right, he's wrong. We native English speakers are notor
Ned Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bridge wants to turn PostgreSQL into a pinball machine
emulator.
>>
>> All right, who leaked the Great Bridge product plans. :-)
> "He's a PostgreSQL wizard, there's got to be a twist..."
rotfl ... where's the C&C warning on this?
Gunnar R|nning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> more in voliation of the original plan.
> violation ? Or is this just another gap in my knowledge of the English
> language ?
You're right, he's wrong. We native English speakers are notoriously
poor spel
At 17:25 10/10/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>So the question is, what do we do now?
>
There seem to be several concerns (in no particular order):
1. Conscious design/development choices based partly/solely on the needs of
one or more companies as opposed to the interest of the open source project
Adam Haberlach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All this whinging about "corperate direction" is really meaningless
> unless you are prepared to jump ship or split off in a clone of the
> original one. The code is what you do with it. We are all lucky that
> it is as good and useful as it is
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:06:37PM -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
> Adam Lang wrote:
> Well to calm any fears of Great Bridge taking over what exactly are the
> terms of employment? Are the developers merely continuing on with what
> they were working on and now getting paid for it, or is Great Bridge
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> more in voliation of the original plan.
>
violation ? Or is this just another gap in my knowledge of the English
language ?
Gunnar
"Adam Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wasn't judging. I was mentioning to others what the concerns probably
> were. Also, it isn't a concern of "Company B" taking over. It is of the
> possibility of development put in the direction that best benefits of
> Company B as opposed to the proj
> I just don't see what the conflict might be. It's not
> like Great Bridge is going to hold Bruce's family
> hostage and force him to rewrite PostgreSQL in Cobol.
> In fact, Great Bridge had better treat their employees
> very well or they will find that their are greener
> pastures somewhere e
> Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well to calm any fears of Great Bridge taking over what exactly are the
> > terms of employment? Are the developers merely continuing on with what
> > they were working on and now getting paid for it, or is Great Bridge
> > saying here are the projects
> At 01:02 PM 10/10/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Bottom line is we're not sure what to do now. Opinions from the
> >floor, anyone?
>
> Yeah, quit worrying and work your collective butts off on 7.1 and 7.2 :)
C'mon, Don. Stop beating around the bush. Tell us what you really
think. :-)
--
At 01:02 PM 10/10/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Bottom line is we're not sure what to do now. Opinions from the
>floor, anyone?
Yeah, quit worrying and work your collective butts off on 7.1 and 7.2 :)
Seriously...the core group is obviously committed to PG, and appear to
be folks of integrity.
lstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "PostgreSQL-general"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001010 10:03] wrote:
> > From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > : One thing we have agreed to is that there must not be an unseemly fraction
> > : of core members working for the same company. With six people on core,
> > : probably about two working at the same c
> I think Great Bridge makes a shining example of an exception to
> that rule, the impression I got from the developers already there
> as well as the managment was very good.
>
> And although I loath to speak for others, you wouldn't think that
> Bruce would take this position if it somehow comp
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
> >> Bridge.
>
> > Whatever happened to this:
>
> > From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > : One thing we have agreed to is that there must not be
* Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001010 09:47] wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
> > Bridge.
>
> Whatever happened to this:
>
> Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:19:48 -0400
> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ross
their new positions. *hats off*
-Mitch
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-general" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"PostgreSQL-development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
>> Bridge.
> Whatever happened to this:
> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : One thing we have agreed to is that there must not be an unseemly fracti
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
> > Bridge.
>
> Whatever happened to this:
>
> Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:19:48 -0400
> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ross J. Reedstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: PostgreSQL-general <[E
Bruce Momjian writes:
> After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
> Bridge.
Whatever happened to this:
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:19:48 -0400
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ross J. Reedstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-general <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subje
As many of you know, several businesses are involved in providing
PostgreSQL support.
After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
Bridge. There will be a press announcement tomorrow (Tuesday) with more
details. I will post a URL here when I have it.
Interestingly, I
39 matches
Mail list logo
