Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I've deliberately let the dust settle slightly on this.
>
> One thing that might help is a more open sponsorship "clearing house".
> Example (not meant as a bid, but just to illustrate): the JDBC driver
> needs a scanner overhaul - it breaks on dollar quoting and a bunch of
> other stuff. I could do that work (as could others, of course) but I
> don't have time, unless someone buys some of my professional time.
> Someone might want to do just that, but how would they find me?
>
> Regarding the secret code stuff - I predict that it will quickly bite
> whoever does it, unless they are extremely lucky.
>
I like this idea.
There is another issue too. In general, there is a feeling like one
needs to produce something that works and not wait for the slower
movement of the community's approval. I don't think several open source
forks for the project necessarily produce problems if most of these are
used as experimental projects. The example which comes to mind is
Samba-TNG. So some of this concern may be overblown.
This is also the way things work with the SQL Standard: The various
vendors (PostgreSQL included) go out and start with the base, extend
that feature set, and eventually come back together to try to build the
next standard based on everyone's experience. This embrace and extend
process is indeed critical for the further development of the standard.
At the same time, I agree with Bruce's main point-- that the lack of
communication is a threat to this progress. So at least some note of
"Best practices" regarding these extensions or contributions would be a
help. Adding a clearing house to this would also add a critical tool
and would also have the side effect of increasing the pace of
development. Maybe have it divided into two sections: Bids and Bounties.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting