On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 03:51:25AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:52:32AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > the buck" evaluation. However, a couple of people have pointed out that
> > we're still vague on what constitutes "bang". For example, what are our
>
> I'm tempted to say "bang on". But I'll resist temptation.
>
> I would like to suggest that we are converging on something like the
> following principles, which can guide case-by-case answers:
>
> * we want to build a strong user base
> - that may not always entail adding every possible user
>
> * a mix of "small/new market" and "traditional suit enterprise"
> targets is desirable
> - such an approach builds strength through diversity
>
> * "industry" types of work, such as standards bodies and
> techno-political organisation work, is of some degree of
> importance.
> - the cost of being involved (in time and travel as well as
> money) should be a significant, but non-determinant,
> factor here
>
> Note that, among other properties, this outline entails that we
> evaluate the third request to speak to emerging-community-meeting in
> a given year _differently_ than the first such request. I think
> that's a feature, not a bug, but I'm happy to hear alternative views.
>
> Do these seem like a reasonable outline of principles on which we
> could make case-by-case determinations?
Yes.. but...
I think we need to consider strongly the payoffs of belonging to
different standards bodies. Some, such as TPC could be highly valuable
(assuming that means the community could then publish TPC numbers);
others, such as ANSI are probably a lot less valuable (my suspicion is
that involvement in ANSI would essentially be a quagmire, but I'm
guessing).
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)