SAP and MySQL ...

Hi,

There was a german article in heise news. See
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-23.05.03-000/.

MySQL gets stored procedures and transactions and all the nice features, you
need for a real database (and postgresql already has) by throwing the code
away an replacing it with sapdb.

Tommi

Am Sonntag, 25. Mai 2003 21:37 schrieb Hans-Jürgen Schönig:

This is what I have seen in the SAP DB mailing list this weekend ...
Maybe all of us should have some fun.

SAP has finally gone completely insane.
I can already see Monty on every SAP advertisment *nocomment*.
This is the worst thing I have ever seen.

Hans

SAP bets on MySQL
The software giant SAP entered a partnership with the Swedish database
developer MvSQL AB. Objective of this collaboration is the unified(?)
development of a new Open-Source database system for Enterprise
applications. This move fits well into the concept of SAP to reduce the
commercial importance of database server.

....
<snip> some general words about MySQL & SAPDB </snip>
....

After a multi-year collaboration and based on both products (MySQL &
SAPDB), a new server shall be developed. [Grammatically, it isn't 100%
clear if this "multi-year collaboration" refers to the past of to something
that has yet to come]. "The primary responsibility of the development lies
at MySQL", declares SAP speaker Karl-Heinz Hess in a newsletter. Support
for the database will be divided between MySQL & SAPDB. As a side-effect
SAP will gain open access to the giant community of MySQL specialists and
developers.

Until the new system is finished, the current SAPDB will be continued in
Walldorf, but under the name MySQL. The new branding shall expressively be
the only change that current SAPDB user have to get accustomed with.</end>
....

--
Dr. Eckhardt + Partner GmbH
http://www.epgmbh.de

Tommi Maekitalo wrote:

Hi,

There was a german article in heise news. See
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-23.05.03-000/.

MySQL gets stored procedures and transactions and all the nice features, you
need for a real database (and postgresql already has) by throwing the code
away an replacing it with sapdb.

Hardly.

SAP failed on the attempt to open source ADABAS even more miserably than
Borland with Interbase. Now it looks like they found someone who said
"we know open source, we can do that, oh pick me, me, me, pick meeeeee!"

MySQL on the other hand has for sure a big user community and is one of
the favorite open source projects of the IT press. What all the
lemming-like humpty-dumpty article writers fail to understand is the
difference between a user- and a core developer community. The latter
mainly consists of 2 people in the MySQL case, Monty and David.

I doubt that those two can drop the support for the existing MySQL user
base anytime soon. And while sure converting everything from MySQL to
SAPDB would be a good idea, there are probably more people in the world
who know how to convert MySQL to PostgreSQL than to SAPDB ... hehe.

Jan

Tommi

Am Sonntag, 25. Mai 2003 21:37 schrieb Hans-J�rgen Sch�nig:

This is what I have seen in the SAP DB mailing list this weekend ...
Maybe all of us should have some fun.

SAP has finally gone completely insane.
I can already see Monty on every SAP advertisment *nocomment*.
This is the worst thing I have ever seen.

Hans

SAP bets on MySQL
The software giant SAP entered a partnership with the Swedish database
developer MvSQL AB. Objective of this collaboration is the unified(?)
development of a new Open-Source database system for Enterprise
applications. This move fits well into the concept of SAP to reduce the
commercial importance of database server.

....
<snip> some general words about MySQL & SAPDB </snip>
....

After a multi-year collaboration and based on both products (MySQL &
SAPDB), a new server shall be developed. [Grammatically, it isn't 100%
clear if this "multi-year collaboration" refers to the past of to something
that has yet to come]. "The primary responsibility of the development lies
at MySQL", declares SAP speaker Karl-Heinz Hess in a newsletter. Support
for the database will be divided between MySQL & SAPDB. As a side-effect
SAP will gain open access to the giant community of MySQL specialists and
developers.

Until the new system is finished, the current SAPDB will be continued in
Walldorf, but under the name MySQL. The new branding shall expressively be
the only change that current SAPDB user have to get accustomed with.</end>
....

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

Hardly.

SAP failed on the attempt to open source ADABAS even more miserably than
Borland with Interbase. Now it looks like they found someone who said
"we know open source, we can do that, oh pick me, me, me, pick meeeeee!"

that's what i think as well.
by the way: did you see that MySQL AB has got $19.5mio of new cash.

MySQL on the other hand has for sure a big user community and is one of
the favorite open source projects of the IT press. What all the
lemming-like humpty-dumpty article writers fail to understand is the
difference between a user- and a core developer community. The latter
mainly consists of 2 people in the MySQL case, Monty and David.

i think i haven't seen a single patch for SAP DB on the mailing list in
months. i don't think they have a single open source developer.
we thought chosing SAP DB as a second database platform (just to be more
independent from PostgreSQL) would be a good idea. we have invested a
lot of time to find out that they cannot compete with PostgreSQL.
Writing precompiler code was painful. Thanks to Michael Meskes and
others doing it for PostgreSQL is easy.
We tried to port stored procedures returning cursors but it took me a
week to find out how to ACCESS this cursor returned by the stored procedure.
i tried to install SAP DB on RedHat - it did not even start.

have fun, Monty ;).

I doubt that those two can drop the support for the existing MySQL user
base anytime soon. And while sure converting everything from MySQL to
SAPDB would be a good idea, there are probably more people in the world
who know how to convert MySQL to PostgreSQL than to SAPDB ... hehe.

exactly. converting to sap db is some sort of pain. not so much the data
but things such as stored procedures and so forth.

still, i think selling postgresql might be more difficult in the future
because "you don't have real features" won't work that nicely anymore.
let's hope for the best and let's hope that we can keep kicking their
butts in the future.

Regards,

Hans @ MySQL free zone

--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706; +43/664/233 90 75
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at

Jan wrote [to hackers, but I moved it to general (sorry in advance if that
was bad)]:

SAP failed on the attempt to open source ADABAS even more miserably than
Borland with Interbase. Now it looks like they found someone who said
"we know open source, we can do that, oh pick me, me, me, pick meeeeee!"

I wonder if the SAP deal is related to the $19.5 million round of
venture capital MySQL AB just raised:

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/06/02/daily19.html
"2003-06-04...

Open-source data firm raises $19.5 million

A Swedish open-source database developer with U.S. offices in Seattle
has raised $19.5 million to continue its advance into the database
market.

MySQL AB said its backers were led by Benchmark Capital of Palo Alto,
Calif.,...
"

Could be the investors wanted to see closer business ties, and SAP's a nice
big business to have close ties to.

Ron

Ron Mayer wrote:

Jan wrote [to hackers, but I moved it to general (sorry in advance if that
was bad)]:

SAP failed on the attempt to open source ADABAS even more miserably than
Borland with Interbase. Now it looks like they found someone who said
"we know open source, we can do that, oh pick me, me, me, pick meeeeee!"

I wonder if the SAP deal is related to the $19.5 million round of
venture capital MySQL AB just raised:

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/06/02/daily19.html
"2003-06-04...

The IMHO important quote in that article is

He [Marten Mickos] added, "With the funds from Benchmark and others,
we can ramp up our commercial business while continuing to support
the open source community."

Pretty clear to me that the open source track looses importance in their
business model - if it ever was of any importance other than being a
marketing gag. They want to ramp up the commercial business.

I wonder what happens with all those big companies they list as current
MySQL users when they pull out their only DB server know how to develop
this new MySQL DB. SAP's declared intention is to get something that
supports their product line ... so it's gotta be incompatible with the
existing MySQL. Or is it going to be that Monty continues MySQL and they
ramp up a new team for the new DB?

These big customers have paid license fees for commercial use. I don't
know, but I wouldn't want to be in that line of fire when MySQL
announces that support for the existing technology will be discontinued
and porting to MyNewSQL is strongly recommended.

Jan

Open-source data firm raises $19.5 million

A Swedish open-source database developer with U.S. offices in Seattle
has raised $19.5 million to continue its advance into the database
market.

MySQL AB said its backers were led by Benchmark Capital of Palo Alto,
Calif.,...
"

Could be the investors wanted to see closer business ties, and SAP's a nice
big business to have close ties to.

Ron

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

Hello Jan,

Friday, June 6, 2003, 9:12:24 PM, you wrote:

I think Open Source means more than that. It means especially Open for
ideas, open for input. Open for people and companies to join the team,
contribute and take part in the decision making. That all is totally
impossible in the MySQL project. Not because it could not be done, but
because the owner of the commercial product MySQL does not want it to
happen.

Although this is an entirely valid opinion. I don't 100% agree with
this point of view.

Just because a project is open source (OS), doesn't mean that all and
sundry should have an input.

OS projects should be open to offers of contribution, but projects should
reserve the right to reject that contribution.

This seems, IMO, to be a plague in OS development. I clique of
developers (regardless of how talented) or an individual, completely
wrecks a project because they want to ensure their ideas are adopted.

OS projects and closed source projects (or any other project for
this matter) needs clear leadership, with someone willing to say yes
or NO.

Open source development is littered with shouting matches leading to
forks, and general fcuk ups. This sometimes works for the better,
unfortunately, most times it doesn't.

I'm painting a pretty black picture and possibly giving you the opinion
that I do not approve of OS development...nothing could be further from
the truth. But I do think we need to get away from the *revisionism*
((c)Mao Tse-tung) that you seem to have fallen into.

Please do not take offence at any comment I make - none are intended.
Things are starting to get interesting... ;-)

--
Best regards,
Ian

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Ian Linwood wrote:

Hello Jan,

Friday, June 6, 2003, 9:12:24 PM, you wrote:

I think Open Source means more than that. It means especially Open for
ideas, open for input. Open for people and companies to join the team,
contribute and take part in the decision making. That all is totally
impossible in the MySQL project. Not because it could not be done, but
because the owner of the commercial product MySQL does not want it to
happen.

Although this is an entirely valid opinion. I don't 100% agree with
this point of view.

Just because a project is open source (OS), doesn't mean that all and
sundry should have an input.

While I agree with you on this point, the real issue behind MySQL is that
the native connection library is GPL (not LGPL) so that IF you link your
software to MySQL's connection library, you either have to GPL your own
commercial code or buy a commercial MySQL license.

In order to maintain this setup, MySQL requires that anyone who donates
code sign over their copyright to MySQL AB. MySQL AB then uses that same
code someone else wrote to make money by selling the commercial licensed
version.

So, in my opinion, MySQL is GPL in name only. Until someone else forks it
and maintains it as a pure GPL product, I'll avoid it.

I suggest anyone who's interested in how to organize an open source
project take a look at FreeBSD. It's the best run project I know of,
especially considering there's basically no corporate sponsorship.

In a nutshell, there's a community of a few hundred developers who have
commit access. Each year, they elect an executive board that oversees
the project as a whole. This does a great job of ensuring that no single
person can bully the project around, and it results it code that's much
better thought out, imho.

Hopefully someday pgsql will have enough developers to warrant such a
model. :)

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:22:08PM +0100, Ian Linwood wrote:

Hello Jan,

Friday, June 6, 2003, 9:12:24 PM, you wrote:

I think Open Source means more than that. It means especially Open for
ideas, open for input. Open for people and companies to join the team,
contribute and take part in the decision making. That all is totally
impossible in the MySQL project. Not because it could not be done, but
because the owner of the commercial product MySQL does not want it to
happen.

Although this is an entirely valid opinion. I don't 100% agree with
this point of view.

Just because a project is open source (OS), doesn't mean that all and
sundry should have an input.

OS projects should be open to offers of contribution, but projects should
reserve the right to reject that contribution.

This seems, IMO, to be a plague in OS development. I clique of
developers (regardless of how talented) or an individual, completely
wrecks a project because they want to ensure their ideas are adopted.

OS projects and closed source projects (or any other project for
this matter) needs clear leadership, with someone willing to say yes
or NO.

Open source development is littered with shouting matches leading to
forks, and general fcuk ups. This sometimes works for the better,
unfortunately, most times it doesn't.

I'm painting a pretty black picture and possibly giving you the opinion
that I do not approve of OS development...nothing could be further from
the truth. But I do think we need to get away from the *revisionism*
((c)Mao Tse-tung) that you seem to have fallen into.

Please do not take offence at any comment I make - none are intended.
Things are starting to get interesting... ;-)

--
Best regards,
Ian

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

--
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!) jim@nasby.net
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.

I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
has served us well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim C. Nasby wrote:

I suggest anyone who's interested in how to organize an open source
project take a look at FreeBSD. It's the best run project I know of,
especially considering there's basically no corporate sponsorship.

In a nutshell, there's a community of a few hundred developers who have
commit access. Each year, they elect an executive board that oversees
the project as a whole. This does a great job of ensuring that no single
person can bully the project around, and it results it code that's much
better thought out, imho.

Hopefully someday pgsql will have enough developers to warrant such a
model. :)

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:22:08PM +0100, Ian Linwood wrote:

Hello Jan,

Friday, June 6, 2003, 9:12:24 PM, you wrote:

I think Open Source means more than that. It means especially Open for
ideas, open for input. Open for people and companies to join the team,
contribute and take part in the decision making. That all is totally
impossible in the MySQL project. Not because it could not be done, but
because the owner of the commercial product MySQL does not want it to
happen.

Although this is an entirely valid opinion. I don't 100% agree with
this point of view.

Just because a project is open source (OS), doesn't mean that all and
sundry should have an input.

OS projects should be open to offers of contribution, but projects should
reserve the right to reject that contribution.

This seems, IMO, to be a plague in OS development. I clique of
developers (regardless of how talented) or an individual, completely
wrecks a project because they want to ensure their ideas are adopted.

OS projects and closed source projects (or any other project for
this matter) needs clear leadership, with someone willing to say yes
or NO.

Open source development is littered with shouting matches leading to
forks, and general fcuk ups. This sometimes works for the better,
unfortunately, most times it doesn't.

I'm painting a pretty black picture and possibly giving you the opinion
that I do not approve of OS development...nothing could be further from
the truth. But I do think we need to get away from the *revisionism*
((c)Mao Tse-tung) that you seem to have fallen into.

Please do not take offence at any comment I make - none are intended.
Things are starting to get interesting... ;-)

--
Best regards,
Ian

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

--
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!) jim@nasby.net
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Ian Linwood wrote:

Hello Jan,

Friday, June 6, 2003, 9:12:24 PM, you wrote:

I think Open Source means more than that. It means especially Open for
ideas, open for input. Open for people and companies to join the team,
contribute and take part in the decision making. That all is totally
impossible in the MySQL project. Not because it could not be done, but
because the owner of the commercial product MySQL does not want it to
happen.

Although this is an entirely valid opinion. I don't 100% agree with
this point of view.

Just because a project is open source (OS), doesn't mean that all and
sundry should have an input.

OS projects should be open to offers of contribution, but projects should
reserve the right to reject that contribution.

Hell no, I didn't mean that! We sure reserve the right to reject
contributions and make frequently use of that right.

That the PostgreSQL CORE team does not "as such" take strong positions
in technical questions should not indicate a lack of leadership. I think
for the current size of the project and the very mature and civilized
culture of the actual development community, this form of rather passive
leadership is a good fit.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.

I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
has served us well.

Or not.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 12:24, Bruce Momjian wrote:

I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.

I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
has served us well.

I don't know, I've often thought that a more active core team could have
helped the project grow more in areas not related to the source code.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

On Thursday 12 June 2003 08:40, Justin Clift wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.

I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
has served us well.

Or not.

Each Open Source project has its own personality. I often use PostgreSQL as
an example of a well-run OSS project; I do believe that the current model is
working well.

I understand some of the concerns with the current model. However, this
database started as a research project, was picked up by a couple of students
and SQLified, then was picked up by a core group of its users who were
interested in making it better. And make it better they did! (with help of
course). Prolific developers have since been added to the core group.

This model has gotten us this far very well; and I don't think a fundamental
change in it is necessary to take us to the next level.

Or, to put it another way, we have a minimalistic 'government'. Some people
like that; others do not. Just as in the 'real world'. The user base,
moderated by core, makes the decisions -- I believe that is as it should be.
Somewhat like cadmium in a nuclear reactor. (:-)) Core prevents a meltdown,
and lets the reactor hum at a nice pace.

We want marketing? The someone steps up to the plate and markets (which has
happened). We want funding? Then some of our users need to step up to the
plate and do some funding. (which has also happened).

To borrow from another projects model, no one is asking Linus Torvalds to
accept a voted-in core team for the Linux kernel. He is also one who governs
as little as possible.

We're not commercial software; why must we act like commercial software?
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

I'm not THAT familiar with recent developer history, community, or model for Postgres. I do see two individual's names a LOT on this listserve, and they really contribute a lot and guide a lot of us.

Bruce is one, and Tom Lane is the other. I think that Postgres's inertia is vulnerable to one of them dying. Hopefully you two guys, that is a long ways away! But I know of a OSS PHP project where the main guy died young in a motorcycle accident, and the last I heard, there was little progress in the project in a year's time; The project might be dead.

I think that the two main guys should keep a list of their references they use (DB theory, architecture planning, different optimizer theory, etc.), the roadmap for next 1-2 years, anything else that would help the group 'if a bus hit them'.

But, like I said, I'm not too familiar with the development community itself. I'm just relating to the trend I see here in the general list.

Lamar Owen wrote:

Lamar Owen wrote:

On Thursday 12 June 2003 08:40, Justin Clift wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.

I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
has served us well.

Or not.

Each Open Source project has its own personality. I often use PostgreSQL as
an example of a well-run OSS project; I do believe that the current model is
working well.

I strongly disagree. The current model is stable, and thus far it has let us
putter along without any major community disputes that may potentially divide
the community.

However, it's also had a chilling effect on our community, not letting us
drive the expansion nor give the right attention to the non-code parts of
PostgreSQL that are important.

If we had some kind of voting system in place for core, then we would likely
have a more active and larger community - generated by the people at the top
being more involved, enthusiastic, energetic, and giving solid leadership
and direction.

Getting involvement in this from the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing group would
be extremely beneficial as well, as it's presently lacking vision, coherent
plans and goals to bring the vision to reality, and consistent effort by all but
a handful of members. Good leadership + direction would be welcome there and
should be included in the PostgreSQL "core" group as well.

<snip>

We want marketing? The someone steps up to the plate and markets (which has
happened).

It's not that we need marketing... we need *consistent* marketing.

We want funding? Then some of our users need to step up to the
plate and do some funding. (which has also happened).

Ha! I've seen more funding and offers of assistance that made sense
_rejected_ by members of the core group - for reasons beneficial to them
privately even though the PostgreSQL Community would have benefited -
than I have seen accepted.

However, your right in that this also demonstates we have a fairly tight-knit
Community that will help one another out when needed, and that's all good.

:-)

To borrow from another projects model, no one is asking Linus Torvalds to
accept a voted-in core team for the Linux kernel. He is also one who governs
as little as possible.

Through delegation. :)

We're not commercial software; why must we act like commercial software?

People seem to get this confused a lot. Why are you associating a successful
method of organising resources (time, people, etc) with only commercial software
projects? _Any_ project that grows to various size points and wants to maintain
it or keep on expanding will have to figure out ways of co-ordinating their
time, efforts, communications, etc, that work for them appropriately at all of
these size points. That's just common sense.

Commercial Software projects and companies often use "models of organisation" that
are proven to work, and although neither they nor us are limited to just those
models, we don't need to write them off as being "not good enough" just because
we don't like the other places that have employed them.

Hope that makes sense, I'm getting really tired about now.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Quite a storm I managed to brew up here... :)

I wasn't trying to insinuate that there was anything wrong with pgsql as
an organization of contributors. I was only suggesting that anyone who
wants to look at a sucessfully run very large open source project take a
look at FBSD.

As others have mentioned, there are probably improvements that could be
made, but then again, there almost always are. Is it worth the
disruption that the change would cause is a better question to ask.
--
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!) jim@nasby.net
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

On Thursday 12 June 2003 13:29, Justin Clift wrote:

Lamar Owen wrote:

Each Open Source project has its own personality. I often use PostgreSQL
as an example of a well-run OSS project; I do believe that the current
model is working well.

I strongly disagree. The current model is stable, and thus far it has let
us putter along without any major community disputes that may potentially
divide the community.

Stable is good.

However, it's also had a chilling effect on our community, not letting us
drive the expansion nor give the right attention to the non-code parts of
PostgreSQL that are important.

Who is 'us'?

If we had some kind of voting system in place for core, then we would
likely have a more active and larger community - generated by the people at
the top being more involved, enthusiastic, energetic, and giving solid
leadership and direction.

I really can't see how the 'people at the top' aren't already the most
involved developers in the group. This project is run by the developers; and
that is in my mind a good thing. 'He who codes the most gets to determine
the code.'

Getting involvement in this from the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing
group would be extremely beneficial as well, as it's presently lacking
vision, coherent plans and goals to bring the vision to reality, and
consistent effort by all but a handful of members. Good leadership +
direction would be welcome there and should be included in the PostgreSQL
"core" group as well.

Is Marc or Bruce not a part of the 'Advocacy and Marketing Group' already?
Let the Advocacy and Marketing group make their suggestions in the open forum
of Hackers and see what is thought of it, just like everything else that has
been done to this database. There are five people on core; their skilset is
varied enough to where any single point of view isn't dominant. The who
Hackers group drives the development.

It's not that we need marketing... we need *consistent* marketing.

If a group of developers can make consistent advances in technology without a
formal structure, why can't a group of marketers do the same? The process is
well known and fully documented in the archives of the hackers mailing list:
you want a feature in PostgreSQL? The first hurdle is to get it on the TODO.
That's a Bruce item, and one that only happens with Hackers (and core)
consensus. The second hurdle is to get a developer with the chops to care
about it enough to make it happen. If I had the chops to do it, seamless
upgrading would already be done. No one with the chops cares enough about it
to make it happen. 'Scratch the itch' the Free Software Mantra states. The
key is getting someone to itch for it that can successfully scratch it. You
must market to the hackers as much as to the users.

Ha! I've seen more funding and offers of assistance that made sense
_rejected_ by members of the core group - for reasons beneficial to them
privately even though the PostgreSQL Community would have benefited -
than I have seen accepted.

Made sense to whom?

However, your right in that this also demonstates we have a fairly
tight-knit Community that will help one another out when needed, and that's
all good.

Yes, we do have a tight community for the most part.

To borrow from another projects model, no one is asking Linus Torvalds to
accept a voted-in core team for the Linux kernel. He is also one who
governs as little as possible.

Through delegation. :)

If you'll note, core developers aren't the ones with exclusive commit
privilege to CVS. Many developers have commit privileges. Many things are
already delegated where it makes sense to do so. Such as the RPMs.

People seem to get this confused a lot. Why are you associating a
successful method of organising resources (time, people, etc) with only
commercial software projects? _Any_ project that grows to various size
points and wants to maintain it or keep on expanding will have to figure
out ways of co-ordinating their time, efforts, communications, etc, that
work for them appropriately at all of these size points. That's just
common sense.

Common sense is relative. Why must a project expand to be successful? Why is
more always better? We need more good developers, no doubt. However, take a
look at how many developers we already have. Maybe we are already
coordinating well.

Sure, we can always improve. However, I disagree that we must look to a
different system to do it.

Commercial Software projects and companies often use "models of
organisation" that are proven to work, and although neither they nor us are
limited to just those models, we don't need to write them off as being "not
good enough" just because we don't like the other places that have employed
them.

But you miss an important point. We are all scratching an itch. If this
ceases to be fun and becomes more like work those of us who are doing this
totally volunteer may just quit. PostgreSQL is a hobby for me; while it
makes sense for me in that I use PostgreSQL, I thoroughly enjoy knowing that
what I am doing is helping people. The current organization makes it easy
for people to jump in (as long as they make the attempt to understand how we
do things and the areas where we will not likely change (like the license --
it's BSD and that's that!) and try to work with us).

You are one who jumped in with some documentation (techdocs in particular);
what was your experience in getting started? It's very informal; I like
that.

So I believe that the current 'by invitation only' core group is a good way
for this project to continue. Feel free to disagree; choice is good.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:

Is Marc or Bruce not a part of the 'Advocacy and Marketing Group'
already? Let the Advocacy and Marketing group make their suggestions in
the open forum of Hackers and see what is thought of it, just like
everything else that has been done to this database. There are five
people on core; their skilset is varied enough to where any single point
of view isn't dominant. The who Hackers group drives the development.

Note that Justin is of the impression that "core" is a secret cabal :)
We've tried to educate him otherwis ... I think the last "really secret"
thing that we discussed on core was Greatbridge coming onto the scene,
everything else gets discussed on -hackers ... I really wish the Advocacy
guys would use the -advocacy list a bit more, mind you, since Justin is
right, there is alot of good that could be done, but that list has been
quite quiet ...

Ha! I've seen more funding and offers of assistance that made sense
_rejected_ by members of the core group - for reasons beneficial to them
privately even though the PostgreSQL Community would have benefited -
than I have seen accepted.

Made sense to whom?

Bruce? Tom? Have I missed some core discussions? Justin, can you
enlighten us on these ... ? *scratch head* Since I do have available to
myself the archives of core, I'd love to go digging back if you have some
examples?

Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:

On Thursday 12 June 2003 13:29, Justin Clift wrote:

Getting involvement in this from the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing
group would be extremely beneficial as well, as it's presently lacking
vision, coherent plans and goals to bring the vision to reality, and
consistent effort by all but a handful of members. Good leadership +
direction would be welcome there and should be included in the PostgreSQL
"core" group as well.

Is Marc or Bruce not a part of the 'Advocacy and Marketing Group' already?
Let the Advocacy and Marketing group make their suggestions in the open forum
of Hackers and see what is thought of it, just like everything else that has
been done to this database. There are five people on core; their skilset is
varied enough to where any single point of view isn't dominant.

Actually I think Justin has a point: the core team consists of hackers.
I believe we do a decent job of leading technical development of
Postgres, but we're not well-qualified to lead marketing efforts.

It doesn't, however, follow that adding some marketing experts to core
would improve matters. I think it'd just fragment our attention.
There's an advocacy/marketing group in place already, and it seems to
me they should just take the ball and run with it. They don't need
core's approval to do the things they can do well.

I wouldn't mind seeing a "core marketing" team evolve to parallel the
existing "core technical" team. But it won't happen by vote. To the
extent that the hackers community listens to core on technical issues,
it's because we've achieved respect by hard work. The core marketing
team has to step forward and win their credibility the same way.

regards, tom lane