Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
>> Bridge.
> Whatever happened to this:
> From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> : One thing we have agreed to is that there must not be an unseemly fraction
> : of core members working for the same company. With six people on core,
> : probably about two working at the same company would be a reasonable
> : limit.
I knew someone was going to bring that up ;-).
There's already been discussion of this point among core. What we
now have is three core members employed by Great Bridge and the
other three either fully or partly employed by PostgreSQL Inc.
In one sense that's a stable situation, but on the other hand it does
not agree with our original informal goal of keeping any one company
to a minority position of the core membership.
None of the core members are interested in giving up their new
positions. En masse resignation from the core committee would preserve
our high moral standards, perhaps, but it wouldn't do the project any
good that I can see. So it seems like the choices are to accept the
status quo, or to appoint some more core committee members to bring
the numbers back where we said they should be.
While I can think of a number of well-qualified candidates for core
membership, I don't much like the notion of appointing core members
just to meet some kind of numerical quota. Also, suppose we do appoint
more members, and then some of them accept positions with GB or PgSQL
Inc; do we repeat the exercise indefinitely? (This is not an unlikely
scenario, since the sort of people who'd be asked to join core are
exactly the sort of people whom both companies would love to hire.)
Bottom line is we're not sure what to do now. Opinions from the
floor, anyone?
regards, tom lane