Re: Sixth Draft

From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Sixth Draft
Date: 2004-09-03 16:01:13
Message-ID: 604qmffik6.fsf@dev6.int.libertyrms.info
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net (Robert Treat) writes:
> I don't understand why people are not happy with just saying "it is
> the work of hundreds of developers" or some such paraphrase? Why do
> we need to be more specific about the structure of the postgresql
> development community?

In the "long form" version, it provides some reassurance that:

a) It's not some tiny clique vulnerable to the vagaries of one
organization's business risks;

b) It's not _controlled_ by one organization, either;

c) It is also not some sort of anarchy that lets just anyone check in
their favorite security holes.

For the pointy-haired types to whom "risk assessment" is everything,
these _are_ points of some importance.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/languages.html
For example, if errors are detected in one of the disk drives, the
system will allow read-only access to memory until the problem is
resolved. This, PE claimed, prohibits a damaged disk drive from
entering errors into the system. -- Computerworld 8 Nov 82 page 4.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message V i s h a l Kashyap @ [Sai Hertz And Control Systems] 2004-09-04 02:57:32 Re: PostgreSQL giving jitters to Skypak
Previous Message Bruno Wolff III 2004-09-03 15:10:05 Re: Sixth Draft (BSD language)