Lamar Owen wrote:
> If you doubt that fact, you need to read the archives for awhile to get a
> sense of how this project is organized. If the steering committee (the core
> six) decide against something, then that something _does_not_happen_. End of
> story. This is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy. Marc is one of the six
> oligarchs, so _Deal_with_it_. Bruce, another of the core six, has to an
> extent agreed with some of the difficulty of the current name. But how have
> the rest weighed in? Up until the last portions of this thread I might have
> agreed with you to an extent. But after I weighed the difficulty of actually
> pulling off a name change, I am dead set against it. It's too much effort
> for too little gain.
I don't think you can just "shut down" a discussion about a name change.
Some good things are coming out of is, such as adding "also called
'postgres'" to some of our documentation, and properly mapping
postgres.org/com to postgresql.org.
I think there is room for an "also called postgres" push among our users
and for marketing. Oracle is changing the name of their server all the
time to position it for marketing so having a secondary name doesn't
hurt. Our _official_ name is PostgreSQL.
(I personally voted for 'tigres' at the time we chose PostgreSQL.)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026