A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, books@ejurka.com (Kris Jurka) wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Nicolai Petri (lists) wrote:
>
>> We also use PostgreSQL as our primary db so it would be more than likely
>> that we would donate money for something similar with postgresql if
>> either :
>> a) we can direct the money at one or more specific tasks
>> or
>> b) the tasks founded will be related to core postgresql features e.g.
>> generel performance or other benefits that fits all.
>
> The problem is organization. Who decides who gets what money? What
> about features that are paid for and worked on and not accepted into
> the community codebase? This was something I hoped the PostgreSQL
> Foundation http://thepostgresqlfoundation.org/ would step in and do,
> but we seem much more focused on advocacy efforts rather than
> developemnt ones.
If you have a proposal, by all means, bring it up.
I think you have an excellent thought, and that PGF would be an
excellent place to talk about assembling that "organization."
I'm not certain it is necessarily something that PGF should itself do;
there may be conflicts of interest here and there on the matter. (I
think it's not something where details for "each deal" should come to
the members at large; a committee or other subset would seem more
appropriate.)
Bring it up as new business. It may be appropriate for a committee to
be tasked with taking care of organizing this. Or people may be able
to finger an exact person that is particularly appropriate to
coordinate it.
It sounds as though Bruce has been doing this somewhat already; it
could be sensible for a committee to form to review 'applications,'
filtering out duds, passing only the "good ones" on to Bruce so that,
from there, there's not a lot of bureaucracy to deal with.
Turn some arrangement like this into a motion, and it can surely be
discussed.
--
"cbbrowne","@","gmail.com"
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/x.html
You should talk to the DOCTOR.