On 06/11/2015 10:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> True but that isn't the fault of core outside of communication. The hackers,
>> reviewers and committers of those patches should be required to communicate
>> with core in a way that expresses the true severity of a situation so core
>> can make a:
>>
>> Management decision.
>
> I feel I've been making an honest and sincere effort do that with
> limited success.
I have no disagreement with this statement. Bruce, you and I have all
been advocating slowing down a bit (when it comes to the recent
releases), we are obviously in the minority.
Instead of a huge thread of complaining from a bunch of people how about
we just say, "These are the productive steps I would like to see"
Here are a few of mine:
1. I would like to see core elected to terms. I think the terms should
be multi-year but no more than 2 or 3 years.
2. I would like to see more transparent discussion from core.
This is a fine line. We shouldn't be talking about potential security
issues publicly. On the other hand there is question about whether or
not core had any business putting out the statement on the Russian
conference.
Note: I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with the statement. I
am only talking about whether or not it was appropriate for core to
handle it.
3. I would like to see core institute a different release policy.
I think something similar to Ubuntu would be a big boon for us.
4. I would like to see core be a strictly technical committee.
I think that advocacy and such with guidance from the community
including core should be reflective of the community as a whole.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.