<br /><br />On Sunday, September 18, 2011, Peter Eisentraut <<a
href="mailto:peter_e@gmx.net">peter_e@gmx.net</a>>wrote:<br />> On fre, 2011-09-16 at 08:59 -0500, Dave Page
wrote:<br/>>> You're missing my point completely. You say you represent PostgreSQL<br /> >> on the SQL
Committee(or German working group, but that's not the<br />>> point), yet the PostgreSQL hackers didn't know
that,and were making<br />>> other plans less than 2 years ago. For me, a representative would have<br />
>>been reporting back to us after each meeting, and discussing points to<br />>> raise before each meeting
-not working in isolation, without the<br />>> knowledge of others.<br />><br />> Let's not get into
legalese. I don't think Susanne's point was the she<br /> > was the sole and authoritative representative of the
project. An<br />> alternative way to phrase this might be that she has been the only<br />> participant in
committeemeetings that has had PostgreSQL's concerns on<br /> > her mind.<br /><br />That is much more reasonable,
thoughunfortunately not what was said. Regardless, I stand by my main point that such a representative should be
communicatingwith the project regularly. Having a rep who works outside the project is of no use at all.<br /><br />--
<br/>Dave Page<br />Blog: <a href="http://pgsnake.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://pgsnake.blogspot.com</a><br
/>Twitter:@pgsnake<br /><br />EnterpriseDB UK: <a href="http://www.enterprisedb.com"
target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br/> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company<br /><br />