Re: Using postgresql.org account as an auth id on third party websites

On 21/9/19 12:32, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> On 9/20/19 3:14 AM, Álvaro Hernández wrote:
>>
>
> [...]
>
>>> Oh, and as a general rule, "requesting" unpaid volunteers to do work
>>> for you for free is in general not a great way to get them
>>> enthusiastic about helping out.
>>      Did I do so? I don't recall where or when I said that.
>>
>>      Irrespective of this: what you say I read as:
>>
>> - Either volunteers, due to being unpaid, are not doing their job
>> correctly (completely);
> tbh as one of those volunteers, I kinda find it pretty irritating that
> that the very first time somebody asks for community auth being opened
> to non-pginfra managed sites an association of "us" not doing our job
> correctly comes up just because that feature does not (and/or is not
> implemented in the way you want it) do like.

     TBQH, I'm having a really hard time to understand how this
conclusion could be derived from my words.

     On the contrary: if anything, what I wanted to say is that why
pg-infra is unpaid and relying on volunteers to do the job, specially
when there are economic resources? Why don't we combine volunteer work
with paid jobs to maintain pg-infra *and help it do more things*? The
fact that there are enough economic resources (and more that could be
raised if needed), some of which remain unallocated year after year, if
anything, signals a failure in precisely allocating them to the best
possible uses. And one of them could be to augment the current pg-infra
team.

- The infra belongs to (AFAIK) to the PostgreSQL Association of Canada
(CA).

As an example, the PostgreSQL Europe Association (EU) runs on CA's
infra. Both are, from a legal perspective, different legal entities.
Other than the possibly legal (is there a services contract among them?)
and GDPR issues, which I just raised as a potential warning for
something that might be revisited, why EU is (or needs to be) different
from other entities in the PostgreSQL Community?

     I'd argue that specially the latter creates a privileged
differentiation. If the service cannot be open globally, it should be
open to no one. Since I won't obviously argue for this, I argue to work
together and find a way to open it to third parties and fix this -from a
legal perspective discriminating situation- asap.

> If _you_ want such a service feel free to propose patches to enable it
> to be (suggestions on what needs to be done have been given on the
> thread already) but consider the fact that we might not want to add even
> more external dependencies on pginfra than we already have...

a) "send patches" is not the only way to improve the current state of
affairs

b) I still haven't heard any technical reason, so no, I don't know what
is holding this back or what the technical limitations are. I don't even
know what needs to be patched and why.