Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>>a) More software can make use of your good name and reputation.
>
> That's rather dangerous, don't you think ? If PostgreSQL
> proper (eg the core server) wants to keep its good name it
> better make sure it is bundled with "good" "add-ons". And that
> would require precisely the additional workload that several
> core people have explained they must avoid in order to be able
> to focus on the core engine to keep its good reputation. So,
> unless people outside the core team take up the task it won't
> happen. And if they do - what's the difference to the current
> state of affairs ?
>
I see you point and I don't disagree. But let me give you a different view.
When I look at the current state of affairs, I see a PostgreSQL name
that, in spite of very skilled people, great technology, a very vibrant
community, and IMO a golden opportunity, is held back by a fear (well
grounded, no doubt) that growth will increase the workload and thus make
it harder to maintain the core engine.
I'm not an advocate of commercial packaging, nor packaging performed by
"outsiders" and I don't think packages bundled with operating systems is
a great idea either. I'm a fan of free open source and I think the way
to archive growth is to appeal to more sponsors. More sponsors equals
more resources. More resources, if handled correctly, could both make
PostgreSQL grow *and* lessen the workload for the core developers.
I really like Jan Wiecks suggestion. To me that sounds like the way to
get started. Recommended add-ons will feel a lot "safer" to the end
users and it will give some perception of growth. I'd like to help out
and I'm perhaps able to put in a couple of hours a week. Maybe there's
more people out there that would like to help? If not for any other
cause, then maybe to promote their own product. In so, we need to be
coordinated. Preferably by someone from "within".
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren