Re: Usability, MySQL, Postgresql.org, gborg, contrib, etc.

> Hey,
>
> First of all, who is this? I don't recognize the e-mail, and you haven't
> been signing any of your posts.

I've been posting on hackers on and off for a few years. My name is Mark.
>
>> true, others, however, are very welcoming to direction.
>
> AFAIK, this includes none of our major code contributors. So all you're
> really talking about is manipulating the TODO list. You can't tell
> programmers what to code unless you're paying them.

Yes and no. People can and do what's needed when it is clearly
articulated. What is lacking is a clear direction WRT marketing.

>
>> It depends in the
>> individual. Lastly, Bruce, Tom, Peter, and others are very didicated to
>> PostgreSQL. If a real case can be made for a feature, I'm sure they are
>> reasonable enough to see that and grudgingly implement it. Someone,
>> however, has to keep an eye on that ball.
>
> Yes, but they don't need a title to do so. Nor is there any reason for
> this
> to be one person. In fact, you've just described one of the reason for
> the
> Core's existance -- and even the Core defers to the consensus of decision
> on
> this forum about which features to implement and how.

I think I am talking about something different. In a company, the core
team would be the CTO. I think some entity, one or more people, needs to
define the product. Typically this is marketing and product management.

>
> Now, if you're arguing that we could use a more cohesive, readable
> roadmap?
> Sure! Want to prepare one? I can even help you find out what's under
> development and what's not likely any time soon.

Absolutely, but it would be meaningless if no body listens.

>
>> Linux has Linus, he has a very good eye in the market forces.
>
> Uh-huh. So? That still doesn't make him a "product manager".

Maybe I've overstated my case, by management I mean the small 'm' not the
big 'M'

>
>> OpenOffice is very much
>> managed by Sun.
>
> I used to be a Project Lead for OpenOffice.org.

Very cool. It is a great project/product.

> I think the amount of
> consensus and compromise, and the extent to which the Community Council
> and
> the Project Leads govern the project, would surprise you.

No it wouldn't.

>
> Overall, I've not seen you present any coherent arguments as to:
> 1) why we need a new person with a title for marketing stuff;

The why is that there is no real entity doing so.

> 2) what this person would be doing that's not already covered by existing
> groups;

All the groups, with the exception of advocacy, are "here's what we are
building" and "here's a bug" groups. There is planning on hackers, but it
is almost purely technical. Marketing features do no often get a
reasonable hearing.

> 3) how this person would be able to accomplish their "job";
I think that a talented manager could make the case for certain features.

> 4) who this person would be.
We recrute like a company does.

>
> As far as I'm concerned, we need use titles here only if it lends the
> entitled
> some kind of authority with the outside world that helps them on their
> volunteer projects (Robert Bernier, "Business Intelligence Analyst", is a
> good example of a good use of titles -- that one convinces companies that
> he
> approaches about case studies that he's for real). Titles are not at all
> useful *inside* the community, we don't need them.

I'm not trying to change the dynamic significantly, but I think, again if
increasing usership is important, that some market driven lessons need to
be learned.