"Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:

> "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Time for the annual update of this list:
>>...
>> Greg Stark, USA
>
> I'm not sure what the countries are supposed to signify but that's neither the
> country I hail from nor where I'm currently living.

Sorry, forgot to say what to put instead. I'll go with "Canada" -- it's more
exotic

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Not to mention there don't seem to be any defined rules. I asked Berkus
> and his reply was, "It has always been a little fuzzy". I asked Devrim
> and he gave me 5 bullet points that don't quite make sense.

Not sure what Devrim is referring to, but most often in the past Rob (or
someone else) has proposed changes to -core which we've said yay or nay to.

> Further I think this list is in the wrong place. It is
> under /developers which to mean is most intuitive to information "for"
> developers not a listing of them.

Maybe. Where else would it go?

> I think the listing should probably go under about/contributors and
> under contributors would be:
>
> Core <-- this is obvious
> Committers <-- this is obvious the only question is it only
> committers to the source tree or do we want to give equal billing to
> the -www guys (I think yes to equal billing)

Actually we've previously agreed (in -core) that we do not want to list
committers for various reasons. Yeah, I know the list isn't too hard to
figure out, but we don't want to advertise it.

> Members (really I think this should be contributors but then it is
> duplicative)

Why not Hackers? Noone is a 'member' of anything except core or mayber
the web/infrastructure team.

/D

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:58:27 +0000
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>
>> > "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> All,
>> >>
>> >> Time for the annual update of this list:
>> >>...
>> >> Greg Stark, USA
>> >
>> > I'm not sure what the countries are supposed to signify but that's
>> > neither the country I hail from nor where I'm currently living.
>>
>> Sorry, forgot to say what to put instead. I'll go with "Canada" --
>> it's more exotic
>
> I believe the list is where you are actually at. Aren't you in the UK
> right now?

Yep. That's fine with me too.

Perhaps it's even better if there's any thought of using this list to drive
the advocacy or user group efforts.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!

---------------------------(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

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:27:42 +0000
> Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:
>
>> Why not Hackers? Noone is a 'member' of anything except core or mayber
>> the web/infrastructure team.
>
> Define Hacker. And I could argue that some are members of PGDG.

Says he who only the other day muttered something about how PGDG wasn't
a defined entity :-)

> What
> about those who provide just as much time and energy in advocacy as
> others do on -heackers? What about people that are working on external
> projects only such as Slony or PLproxy?

The latter are still hackers using the definition we're likely to agree
on (ie. not a cracker). Both groups are 'Contributors' though. Maybe
just use 'Regular contributors' and 'Occasional contributors'. Or major
and minor. Or something entirely different.

/D

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:53:43 +0000
> Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:
>
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:27:42 +0000
>>> Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not Hackers? Noone is a 'member' of anything except core or
>>>> mayber the web/infrastructure team.
>>> Define Hacker. And I could argue that some are members of PGDG.
>> Says he who only the other day muttered something about how PGDG
>> wasn't a defined entity :-)
>
> I believe the term was "legal" entity (If it wasn't that is what I
> should of wrote). Which is true. We are however a "community".
>
>>> What
>>> about those who provide just as much time and energy in advocacy as
>>> others do on -heackers? What about people that are working on
>>> external projects only such as Slony or PLproxy?
>> The latter are still hackers using the definition we're likely to
>> agree on (ie. not a cracker). Both groups are 'Contributors' though.
>> Maybe just use 'Regular contributors' and 'Occasional contributors'.
>> Or major and minor. Or something entirely different.
>
>
> Now that seems reasonable.
>
> Core
> Regular contributors
> Occasional contributors
> Past contributors
>
> Core and Regular should be on the same page.
> Occasional and Past on another? (At a minimum we can't have Past on
> the same page it would get too large).

Man, I'm glad I DB:ified that page a couple of months back :-P

Do we really need separate pages, though? We already have the
distinction that major developers (in your case, that would be Regular
ones, I guess) are listed in full details, and other contributors are
just listed with name.

I still think we should keep "Hackers Emeritus" (you may rename it). The
people on that list are way more than just "past contributors" IMHO.


> I don't like major and minor because a one line patch that saves
> someone from loosing all there data is a major contribution but we may
> never hear from the person again.

We don't generally add anybody who just provides a single patch, ever.
They go in the release notes, but we only add people who've been around
for a while to this list at all. I think, at least, but as has already
been told there are no strict policies...

//Magnus


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Kris Jurka wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Kris Jurka, Finland
>
> USA actually.

Where in the US? We generally list at least the state for ppl int he US
- most often both city+state. (shows up only for people listed as major
developers for the time being, which is why nobody asked for it before)

//Magnus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Committers <-- this is obvious the only question is it only
> committers to the source tree or do we want to give equal billing to
> the -www guys (I think yes to equal billing)
>
>

I don't have a problem with that, but I think core code committers and
www maintainers should be indentified separately. 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.

cheers

andrew

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:34 AM, in message <474DA6C1.4070605@hagander..net>,
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:

> We don't generally add anybody who just provides a single patch, ever.
> They go in the release notes, but we only add people who've been around
> for a while to this list at all.

I'm not sure what the point of the list is, but I had assumed that
one reason for publishing it was to show the scope of the community.
Wouldn't advocacy be better served by listing all the contributors,
even those who have contributed for the first time in that release?

Is there some risk there that I'm missing, a matter of the effort
to gather the information, or to avoid offending more regular
contributors?

-Kevin




---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:15:52 -0500
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>> Committers <-- this is obvious the only question is it only
>>> committers to the source tree or do we want to give equal billing to
>>> the -www guys (I think yes to equal billing)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I don't have a problem with that, but I think core code committers
>> and www maintainers should be indentified 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 .
>


You are being overly sensitive. I never suggested otherwise. I simply
suggested that the roles people do in fact play should be public.
>
>> 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..
>
>
>

When I was made a committer, someone, I forget who, but I'm fairly sure
it was some member of core, told me explicitly that it was intended to
assist me professionally (and it has). That seems strangely at odds with
a reluctance to publish the list of names of committers.

It's not something I care deeply about, but it seems more than strange
given that the list of active committers at least is not too hard to
discover.

cheers

andrew

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- --On Wednesday, November 28, 2007 08:20:04 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake"
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> Core <-- this is obvious
> Committers <-- this is obvious the only question is it only
> committers to the source tree or do we want to give equal billing to
> the -www guys (I think yes to equal billing)

Equal billing, but categorized ... for instance, Dave Page might be something
like:

Dave Page (core, www) (where core reflects core server, not Core member)

> Hacker Emeritus

Past contributions? Most definitely ...

- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHTbxS4QvfyHIvDvMRAq4sAKDoUAhKsrHYPys7oeLyex UMyzHXewCffvZI
D9i/ZWv84u5LBoXbSSv1ywI=
=gBvn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings