Re: Kudos, Sponsors, Comments

There's no doubt about the importance of both cash and programming as
resources, so what about identifying other contributions that are worthy of
note?

For example, Afilias didn't only front Jan but back in OSCON and Linux World
San Francisco of this past year they took a chunk of money and pressed the
pg_live iso that I created. It wasn't that expensive an act but it sure was a
great marketing device and everybody agreed that it was a definite plus.

There's three phases to the successfull application: coding, debugging, and
documentation (marketing/propaganda). So how about identifying those
companies who have "clearly" supported the project by allocating real money
and resources by supporting the project in the generation of articles, books,
and any other activity that helps put the word out?

Do we have an existing manifesto, or some publicly accessible document,
defining a contributor/sponsor?

Robert Bernier

On December 23, 2004 11:37 pm, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Well, back when it was on advocacy, the idea (as I understood it) was to
recognize those companies the truly sponsor our development, and by sponsor I
do mean money, since afaik Tom/Jan/Bruce etc all get paid in actual money by
these companies to hack on PostgreSQL.

> > We stated it before and I'll restate it now, as soon as someone comes
> > up with logos for those companies, they can be added to the list.
>
> I really want a cohesive policy about who gets listed and who doesn't
> before we start adding people ad-hoc. How much, in code/resource/time
> contributions, is required to get listed?
>
> If we put up language, NOW, that makes it clear that this is not a
> complete list of corporate contributors, that gives us time to agree on
> a policy. The current language implies that the list is complete,
> which could be offensive to some companies who have contributed a lot
> and are not yet listed.