On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:43:12PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> The main reason I worry about this is because of a very real
> chicken/egg problem here that I keep banging into. Since the commit
> standards for so many other open-source projects are low, there are
> a non trivial number of business people who assume "!committer ==
> ![trusted|competent]". That makes having such a limited number of
> people who can commit both a PR issue ("this project must not be
> very important if there are only 19 committers") and one limiting
> sponsorship ("I'm not going to pay someone to work on this feature
> who's been working on it for years but isn't even a committer").
>
> There are a significant number of companies who are willing to
> sponsor committers to open-source projects; there are almost none
> who will sponsor reviewers or "contributors" of any stature unless
> they're already deep into the PostgreSQL community. That's one of
> the many reasons it's easier for a committer to attract funding for
> core PostgreSQL work, be it in the form of a full-time job or
> project-oriented funding. The corresponding flip side to that is
> that the small number of committers is limiting the scope of funding
> the project can accumulate.
I want to caution against adjusting things to improve funding
possibilities. There is nothing wrong with increasing funding
possibilities, per say, but such changes often distort behavior in
unforeseen ways that adversely affect our community process.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +