On 05/13/2016 12:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Hey, if I am wrong that's awesome. The impression I have is the general
>> workflow is this:
>> The difference being one of coopetition versions competition for the
>> betterment of the community. If there are companies that are doing that
>> already, that is awesome and I applaud it. I was just trying to further
>> drive that idea home.
>
> I think that's already happening. I'm happy to see more of it. In
> practical terms, though, it's harder to collaborate between companies
> because then you need two management teams to be on-board with it, and
> there can be other competing priorities.
Yep, that's true.
> If either company needs to
> pull staff of a project because of some competing priority (say,
> fixing a broken customer or addressing an urgent customer need), then
> the whole project can stall. The whole wagon train moves at the pace
> of the slowest camel. It's nice when we can collaborate across
> companies and I'm all for it, but sometimes it's faster to for a
> single company to just assign a couple of people to a project and tell
> them to go do it.
>
> Now, where this gets tricky is when it comes down to whether the
> end-product of that effort is something the community wants. We all
> need to be careful not to make our corporate priorities into community
> priorities. Features shouldn't get committed without a consensus that
> they are both useful and well-implemented, and prior discussion is a
> good way to achieve that. On the whole, I think we've done reasonably
> well in this area. There is often disagreement but in the end I think
> usually end up in a place that is good for PostgreSQL. Hopefully that
> will continue.
>
+1
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.