Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > I don't have a problem with that, but I think core code committers
> > > and www maintainers should be identified separately.
> >
> > Why? Then we have to also separate advocacy which is just as important
> > and pgfoundry... as well as possibly a host of others. We all have our
> > job in the community .
> >
> > > On a closely
> > > related note: last time I looked there was no way for anyone to
> > > discover on the web site who the committers actually are. That would
> > > also probably be useful.
> >
> > See Dave's response about core not wanting committers that easily
> > identified. I actually recall this argument, basically there are times
> > when commit access might be revoked temporarily etc... IIRC..
>
> I believe the reason we don't publicize who is a committer is that we
> have non-committers who do a lot more for the project. Commit rights
> are usually given to people who do a lot of patches (perhaps small ones)
> while people who develop larger patches are less likely to get commit
> rights rapidly.

Of course the next question is why core is split out, especially since
core's role is mostly for confidential company contacts and discipline.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match