Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

On Mon, 2 May 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Dave Held wrote:
>>> Well, you make Postgres sound like a very democratic community, but
>>> I'm afraid this is a fairy tale. Aren't the people who approve
>>> patches exactly the in group that you claim doesn't exist? Aren't
>>> they the people that you need buy-in from to really contribute to
>>> Postgres? The reason I make this point is because I know what a
>>> democratic development community really looks like, and the Boost
>>> community is one such example. That truly *is* democratic, because
>>> decisions are made as a group, and no fixed subset of members has
>>> an overriding veto. The group has moderators, but they exist only
>>> to moderate discussion on the mailing lists. I'm not saying that
>>> it is bad that Postgres is not democratic. Postgres is a totally
>>> different kind of beast than Boost, and probably benefits from
>>> having a few people ultimately decide its fate. But let's call a
>>> spade a spade and not pretend that contributors don't have to get
>>> buy-in from core.
>>
>> Really? You have a different perspective than I see. I have seen
>> patches be accepted that had no core buy-in. We accept patches based on
>> group feedback, not some closed approval process.
>
> Let me also ask for you to provide an example of the behavior you
> describe.

How many patches have you "applied" thinking they were good/safe, only to
have Tom jump on top of you and either require changes, or yank them
completely?

As far as code submissions are concerned, Tom has pretty much been "final
arbitrar" (not that I'm against that, I think its required to keep the
code 'clean') ... those with cvs commit privileges are a bit higher on the
totem, but they've already been "through the fire" with Tom, else they
would't have those privileges ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664