Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Contributor List policy

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Contributor List policy
Date: 2008-03-10 21:30:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:52:04 -0800
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:

> Josh,
> The above is BS in several different ways, so I'm going to have to
> call you out on it.  You're attempting to set up a polarized "Core
> vs. Non-code contributors" argument in order to create an artificial
> crisis around an issue which there's no reason not to plan out and
> deploy gradually.

No that is not what I am doing. I am saying exactly what you said:

2) non-code contributors now get listed in the "Contributors" section,
but are not eligible for the "Major Developers" section.  This is a
compromise between previous practice (not listing non-code contributors
at all) and what some people would like to see ("Major Contributors"
with non-code contributors); I figure we'll revisit this policy in a
year or so.

Which as I have stated on multiple threads now:

1. We don't currently have a Major Developers section

2. The above creates an exclusivity among developers without
appropriate attribution to the larger community.

You asked for comments, if you didn't want them you should have just
put the policy in place without the transparency.

> First off, Robert Treat did *not* do anything about non-code
> contributors, as evidenced by the fact that there are exactly zero

I didn't say he did. Once again you are flailing about like a upside
down turtle. I said, that he stated that is how he made the assessment.
Just because his follow through may or may not have been (I actually
don't have an opinion on that) isn't what it should have been doesn't
excuse the fact that it is what he in theory used to make the
selections for submission to core.

My point is simple:

Either you include all contributors or you don't.

Your "Draft" excludes some of the biggest contributors we have,
including Jean-Paul and Gabriele.

> non-code contributors in either section.  (and don't bring up Devrim;
> packaging is code, as you'd know if you edited RPMs).

I have edited RPMS and the above is completely off topic for the
thread. Why are you being so difficult about this. If you didn't want
feedback you shouldn't have asked for it.

> Second off, the proposed core policy is an attempt to list *more*
> non-code contributors than have ever been listed before.  Your only

If this was true, you wouldn't separate them. You would categorize them
based on their respective merits.

> issue of substance is that we're not moving *fast enough* for you.
> Shouldn't you be busy with other things, like PostgreSQL East?

Josh do not portend to tell me my priorities. 

> Well, not everything has to be a crisis.  Some things we can plan
> out, and deploy one change at a time.

Yes, which is exactly what I am trying to do. Which is why I suggested
a detailed (although not exacting) alternative plan. It is also why I
called Bruce so that he could here in my words exactly what my thinking

I don't expect this to be resolved today or tomorrow but doing things
the wrong way for the sake of expediency isn't helpful either.


Joshua D. Drake

- -- 
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: 
PostgreSQL Community Conference:
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project:
      PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of Dolphins

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-03-10 21:49:27
Subject: Re: Contributor List policy
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2008-03-10 20:52:04
Subject: Re: Contributor List policy

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group