Re: Changing the sponsors page

From: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Changing the sponsors page
Date: 2011-05-17 22:02:48
Message-ID: 3EA9B024-A932-44AF-B292-2C0C125B6812@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On May 12, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Major Sponsors would be companies who have supported one or more
> full-time contributors, or the equivalent, for more than one year.
>
> Sponsors would be any company who has consistently contributed
> substantial developer time and/or money to PostgreSQL (i.e. several
> $thousand) for a year or more. A company which does *only* event
> sponsorships wouldn't count, because they already get credit through the
> event.

I like this idea, though I want to propose that Postgres consulting companies be segregated, for two reasons:

1: It makes it easier for people who want to find consulting companies to find them (yes, I know they can look at the support page, but wouldn't you prefer to do business with a company that directly supports the community? :)
2: It would point out companies that support Postgres even though it's not their primary business focus. There are far more companies that use Postgres than companies that offer support; if we can make companies that use Postgres realized that they have a way to directly help the project then hopefully more of that will happen.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2011-05-17 22:03:39 Re: Crediting reviewers & bug-reporters in the release notes
Previous Message Nasby, Jim 2011-05-17 21:55:50 Re: Crediting sponsors in release notes?