-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:16:16 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > 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.
*shrug* I have always considered core a steering committee type of
deal. Not "in charge" persay but there as a focal point when needed
(like the name change decision that was finally made).
It seems to me that it makes sense, based on that to break it out.
However there is another consideration in that at least two core
members seem to have zero interest in being involved in a very public
way like you suggest above. So perhaps it makes sense for core to be
inclusive of the list and instead push all "contacts" to a contacts
page.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHTb9OATb/zqfZUUQRArpyAJ9H4ANMkcYvvQ/EkmL9ZySSM1PNJQCfaEFi
kEFgzu+0FjRgA+i2RdxbxIE=
=BGTr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----