Re: New PostgreSQL Sponsorship Criteria

JPA,

> So calculating for Dalibo's time contribution is quite a nightmare,
> including for myself. So I don't even think about anyone on this
> list :-D

We don't need to calculate the exact hours. We know that Dalibo has at
least two people who spend a LOT of time on community contribution
stuff, and have for years; that's good enough to decide the
sponsor/major sponsor split (plus Dalibo as a company does other stuff).
This is why the two-level system is nice: less hairsplitting.

My purpose here is to distiguish this from, for example, Aster Data or
Google, each of whom have one staff member who spends less than 20% of
their worktime contributing to PostgreSQL, which makes them "sponsors"
as opposed to "major sponsors". And as others have pointed out, in
borderline cases we can just ask the contributor themselves.

> So basically my objection is that we drop the examples, and let the
> general rules apply, as the Committee can freely decide ?

Well, I think we need *some* examples, or the rules are going to be
pretty unclear.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com