> 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
> to be one person. In fact, you've just described one of the reason for
> Core's existance -- and even the Core defers to the consensus of decision
> 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
> 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
>> 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
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2004-04-26 19:46:54|
|Subject: Re: Usability, MySQL, Postgresql.org, gborg, contrib, etc.|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-04-26 19:19:21|
|Subject: Re: signal 11 on AIX: 7.4.2|