Subject: SAP and MySQL ...

From: Hans-Jürgen Schönig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 21:37:11 +0200

This is what I have seen in the SAP DB mailing list this weekend ...
Maybe all of us should have some fun.

SAP has finally gone completely insane.
I can already see Monty on every SAP advertisment *nocomment*.
This is the worst thing I have ever seen.

	Hans

SAP bets on MySQL
The software giant SAP entered a partnership with the Swedish database
developer MvSQL AB. Objective of this collaboration is the unified(?)
development of a new Open-Source database system for Enterprise
applications. This move fits well into the concept of SAP to reduce the
commercial importance of database server.

....
<snip> some general words about MySQL & SAPDB </snip>
....

After a multi-year collaboration and based on both products (MySQL & SAPDB),
a new server shall be developed. [Grammatically, it isn't 100% clear if this
"multi-year collaboration" refers to the past of to something that has yet
to come]. "The primary responsibility of the development lies at MySQL",
declares SAP speaker Karl-Heinz Hess in a newsletter. Support for the
database will be divided between MySQL & SAPDB. As a side-effect SAP will
gain open access to the giant community of MySQL specialists and developers.

Until the new system is finished, the current SAPDB will be continued in
Walldorf, but under the name MySQL. The new branding shall expressively be
the only change that current SAPDB user have to get accustomed with.</end>
....

-- 
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706; +43/664/233 90 75
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at

---

From: Tommi Maekitalo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 15:50:57 +0200

Hi,

There was a german article in heise news. See 
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-23.05.03-000/.

MySQL gets stored procedures and transactions and all the nice features, you 
need for a real database (and postgresql already has) by throwing the code 
away an replacing it with sapdb.

Tommi

Am Sonntag, 25. Mai 2003 21:37 schrieb Hans-Jürgen Schönig:
> After a multi-year collaboration and based on both products (MySQL &
> SAPDB), a new server shall be developed. [Grammatically, it isn't 100%
> clear if this "multi-year collaboration" refers to the past of to something
> that has yet to come]. "The primary responsibility of the development lies
> at MySQL", declares SAP speaker Karl-Heinz Hess in a newsletter. Support
> for the database will be divided between MySQL & SAPDB. As a side-effect
> SAP will gain open access to the giant community of MySQL specialists and
> developers.
>

-- 
Dr. Eckhardt + Partner GmbH
http://www.epgmbh.de

---

From: Jan Wieck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:25:35 -0400

> away an replacing it with sapdb.

Hardly.

SAP failed on the attempt to open source ADABAS even more miserably than 
Borland with Interbase. Now it looks like they found someone who said 
"we know open source, we can do that, oh pick me, me, me, pick meeeeee!"

MySQL on the other hand has for sure a big user community and is one of 
the favorite open source projects of the IT press. What all the 
lemming-like humpty-dumpty article writers fail to understand is the 
difference between a user- and a core developer community. The latter 
mainly consists of 2 people in the MySQL case, Monty and David.

I doubt that those two can drop the support for the existing MySQL user 
base anytime soon. And while sure converting everything from MySQL to 
SAPDB would be a good idea, there are probably more people in the world 
who know how to convert MySQL to PostgreSQL than to SAPDB ... hehe.

Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== [email-masked] #

---

From: Hans-Jürgen Schönig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:52:24 +0200

> "we know open source, we can do that, oh pick me, me, me, pick meeeeee!"

that's what i think as well.
by the way: did you see that MySQL AB has got $19.5mio of new cash.

> mainly consists of 2 people in the MySQL case, Monty and David.

i think i haven't seen a single patch for SAP DB on the mailing list in 
months. i don't think they have a single open source developer.
we thought chosing SAP DB as a second database platform (just to be more 
independent from PostgreSQL) would be a good idea. we have invested a 
lot of time to find out that they cannot compete with PostgreSQL.
Writing precompiler code was painful. Thanks to Michael Meskes and 
others doing it for PostgreSQL is easy.
We tried to port stored procedures returning cursors but it took me a 
week to find out how to ACCESS this cursor returned by the stored procedure.
i tried to install SAP DB on RedHat - it did not even start.

have fun, Monty ;).

> who know how to convert MySQL to PostgreSQL than to SAPDB ... hehe.

exactly. converting to sap db is some sort of pain. not so much the data 
but things such as stored procedures and so forth.

still, i think selling postgresql might be more difficult in the future 
because "you don't have real features" won't work that nicely anymore.
let's hope for the best and let's hope that we can keep kicking their 
butts in the future.

	Regards,

		Hans @ MySQL free zone

---

From: "Ron Mayer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:22:33 -0700

Jan wrote [to hackers, but I moved it to general (sorry in advance if that
>"we know open source, we can do that, oh pick me, me, me, pick meeeeee!"

I wonder if the SAP deal is related to the $19.5 million round of
venture capital MySQL AB just raised:

  http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/06/02/daily19.html
  "2003-06-04...

   Open-source data firm raises $19.5 million

   A Swedish open-source database developer with U.S. offices in Seattle
   has raised $19.5 million to continue its advance into the database
market.

   MySQL AB said its backers were led by Benchmark Capital of Palo Alto,
Calif.,...
  "

Could be the investors wanted to see closer business ties, and SAP's a nice
big business to have close ties to.

   Ron

---

From: Jan Wieck <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:46:06 -0400

>   http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/06/02/daily19.html

The IMHO important quote in that article is

     He [Marten Mickos] added, "With the funds from Benchmark and others,
     we can ramp up our commercial business while continuing to support
     the open source community."

Pretty clear to me that the open source track looses importance in their 
business model - if it ever was of any importance other than being a 
marketing gag. They want to ramp up the commercial business.

I wonder what happens with all those big companies they list as current 
MySQL users when they pull out their only DB server know how to develop 
this new MySQL DB. SAP's declared intention is to get something that 
supports their product line ... so it's gotta be incompatible with the 
existing MySQL. Or is it going to be that Monty continues MySQL and they 
ramp up a new team for the new DB?

These big customers have paid license fees for commercial use. I don't 
know, but I wouldn't want to be in that line of fire when MySQL 
announces that support for the existing technology will be discontinued 
and porting to MyNewSQL is strongly recommended.

Jan

---

From: Ian Linwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 23:22:08 +0100

Hello Jan,

Friday, June 6, 2003, 9:12:24 PM, you wrote:

> I think Open Source means more than that. It means especially Open for 
> ideas, open for input. Open for people and companies to join the team, 
> contribute and take part in the decision making. That all is totally 
> impossible in the MySQL project. Not because it could not be done, but 
> because the owner of the commercial product MySQL does not want it to 
> happen.

Although this is an entirely valid opinion. I don't 100% agree with
this point of view.

Just because a project is open source (OS), doesn't mean that all and
sundry should have an input.

OS projects should be open to offers of contribution, but projects should
reserve the right to reject that contribution.

This seems, IMO, to be a plague in OS development. I clique of
developers (regardless of how talented) or an individual, completely
wrecks a project because they want to ensure their ideas are adopted.

OS projects and closed source projects (or any other project for
this matter) needs clear leadership, with someone willing to say yes
or NO.

Open source development is littered with shouting matches leading to
forks, and general fcuk ups. This sometimes works for the better,
unfortunately, most times it doesn't.

I'm painting a pretty black picture and possibly giving you the opinion
that I do not approve of OS development...nothing could be further from
the truth. But I do think we need to get away from the *revisionism*
((c)Mao Tse-tung) that you seem to have fallen into.

Please do not take offence at any comment I make - none are intended.
Things are starting to get interesting... ;-)

-- 
Best regards,
 Ian

---

From: "scott.marlowe" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:00:07 -0600 (MDT)

> sundry should have an input.

While I agree with you on this point, the real issue behind MySQL is that 
the native connection library is GPL (not LGPL) so that IF you link your 
software to MySQL's connection library, you either have to GPL your own 
commercial code or buy a commercial MySQL license.

In order to maintain this setup, MySQL requires that anyone who donates 
code sign over their copyright to MySQL AB.  MySQL AB then uses that same 
code someone else wrote to make money by selling the commercial licensed 
version.

So, in my opinion, MySQL is GPL in name only.  Until someone else forks it 
and maintains it as a pure GPL product, I'll avoid it.

---

From: "Jim C. Nasby" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:52:07 -0500

I suggest anyone who's interested in how to organize an open source
project take a look at FreeBSD. It's the best run project I know of,
especially considering there's basically no corporate sponsorship.

In a nutshell, there's a community of a few hundred developers who have
commit access. Each year, they elect an executive board that oversees
the project as a whole. This does a great job of ensuring that no single
person can bully the project around, and it results it code that's much
better thought out, imho.

Hopefully someday pgsql will have enough developers to warrant such a
model. :)

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:22:08PM +0100, Ian Linwood wrote:
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
> http://archives.postgresql.org
> 

-- 
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!)                    [email-masked]
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:24:17 -0400 (EDT)

I assume we don't want to mimick FreeBSD's infighting.

I don't have any problem with doing voting, but I will say that the
stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",
has served us well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to [email-masked] so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> 

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [email-masked]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---

From: Jan Wieck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:28:44 -0400

> reserve the right to reject that contribution.

Hell no, I didn't mean that! We sure reserve the right to reject 
contributions and make frequently use of that right.

That the PostgreSQL CORE team does not "as such" take strong positions 
in technical questions should not indicate a lack of leadership. I think 
for the current size of the project and the very mature and civilized 
culture of the actual development community, this form of rather passive 
leadership is a good fit.

Jan

---

From: Justin Clift <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:40:52 +0800

> stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",

Or not.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Jun 2003 09:21:05 -0400

> stated PostgreSQL core leadership goal, "to do as little as possible",

I don't know, I've often thought that a more active core team could have
helped the project grow more in areas not related to the source code. 

Robert Treat
-- 
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

---

From: Lamar Owen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:49:07 -0400

> Or not.

Each Open Source project has its own personality.  I often use PostgreSQL as 
an example of a well-run OSS project; I do believe that the current model is 
working well.

I understand some of the concerns with the current model.  However, this 
database started as a research project, was picked up by a couple of students 
and SQLified, then was picked up by a core group of its users who were 
interested in making it better.  And make it better they did!  (with help of 
course).  Prolific developers have since been added to the core group.

This model has gotten us this far very well; and I don't think a fundamental 
change in it is necessary to take us to the next level.

Or, to put it another way, we have a minimalistic 'government'.  Some people 
like that; others do not.  Just as in the 'real world'.  The user base, 
moderated by core, makes the decisions -- I believe that is as it should be.  
Somewhat like cadmium in a nuclear reactor. (:-))  Core prevents a meltdown, 
and lets the reactor hum at a nice pace.

We want marketing?  The someone steps up to the plate and markets (which has 
happened).  We want funding?  Then some of our users need to step up to the 
plate and do some funding.  (which has also happened). 

To borrow from another projects model, no one is asking Linus Torvalds to 
accept a voted-in core team for the Linux kernel.  He is also one who governs 
as little as possible.

We're not commercial software; why must we act like commercial software?
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

---

From: Dennis Gearon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:58:49 -0700

I'm not THAT familiar with recent developer history, community, or model for Postgres. I do see two individual's names a LOT on this listserve, and they really contribute a lot and guide a lot of us.

Bruce is one, and Tom Lane is the other. I think that Postgres's inertia is vulnerable to one of them dying. Hopefully you two guys, that is a long ways away! But I know of a OSS PHP project where the main guy died young in a motorcycle accident, and the last I heard, there was little progress in the project in a year's time; The project might be dead.

I think that the two main guys should keep a list of their references they use (DB theory, architecture planning, different optimizer theory, etc.), the roadmap for next 1-2 years, anything else that would help the group 'if a bus hit them'.

But, like I said, I'm not too familiar with the development community itself. I'm just relating to the trend I see here in the general list.

---

From: Justin Clift <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:29:37 +0800

> an example of a well-run OSS project; I do believe that the current model is 

I strongly disagree.  The current model is stable, and thus far it has let us
putter along without any major community disputes that may potentially divide
the community.

However, it's also had a chilling effect on our community, not letting us
drive the expansion nor give the right attention to the non-code parts of
PostgreSQL that are important.

If we had some kind of voting system in place for core, then we would likely
have a more active and larger community - generated by the people at the top
being more involved, enthusiastic, energetic, and giving solid leadership
and direction.

Getting involvement in this from the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing group would
be extremely beneficial as well, as it's presently lacking vision, coherent
plans and goals to bring the vision to reality, and consistent effort by all but
a handful of members.  Good leadership + direction would be welcome there and
should be included in the PostgreSQL "core" group as well.

<snip>
> happened).

It's not that we need marketing... we need *consistent* marketing.

 > We want funding?  Then some of our users need to step up to the

Ha!  I've seen more funding and offers of assistance that made sense
_rejected_ by members of the core group - for reasons beneficial to them
privately even though the PostgreSQL Community would have benefited -
than I have seen accepted.

However, your right in that this also demonstates we have a fairly tight-knit
Community that will help one another out when needed, and that's all good.

:-)

> accept a voted-in core team for the Linux kernel.  He is also one who governs 

Through delegation.  :)

> We're not commercial software; why must we act like commercial software?

People seem to get this confused a lot.  Why are you associating a successful
method of organising resources (time, people, etc) with only commercial software
projects?  _Any_ project that grows to various size points and wants to maintain
it or keep on expanding will have to figure out ways of co-ordinating their
time, efforts, communications, etc, that work for them appropriately at all of
these size points.  That's just common sense.

Commercial Software projects and companies often use "models of organisation" that
are proven to work, and although neither they nor us are limited to just those
models, we don't need to write them off as being "not good enough" just because
we don't like the other places that have employed them.

Hope that makes sense, I'm getting really tired about now.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

---

From: "Jim C. Nasby" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:57:55 -0500

Quite a storm I managed to brew up here... :)

I wasn't trying to insinuate that there was anything wrong with pgsql as
an organization of contributors. I was only suggesting that anyone who
wants to look at a sucessfully run very large open source project take a
look at FBSD.

As others have mentioned, there are probably improvements that could be
made, but then again, there almost always are. Is it worth the
disruption that the change would cause is a better question to ask.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!)                    [email-masked]
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

---

From: Lamar Owen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:53:36 -0400

On Thursday 12 June 2003 13:29, Justin Clift wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > Each Open Source project has its own personality.  I often use PostgreSQL
> > as an example of a well-run OSS project; I do believe that the current
> > model is working well.

> I strongly disagree.  The current model is stable, and thus far it has let
> us putter along without any major community disputes that may potentially
> divide the community.

Stable is good.

> PostgreSQL that are important.

Who is 'us'? 

> If we had some kind of voting system in place for core, then we would
> likely have a more active and larger community - generated by the people at
> the top being more involved, enthusiastic, energetic, and giving solid
> leadership and direction.

I really can't see how the 'people at the top' aren't already the most 
involved developers in the group.  This project is run by the developers; and 
that is in my mind a good thing.  'He who codes the most gets to determine 
the code.'

> Getting involvement in this from the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing
> group would be extremely beneficial as well, as it's presently lacking
> vision, coherent plans and goals to bring the vision to reality, and
> consistent effort by all but a handful of members.  Good leadership +
> direction would be welcome there and should be included in the PostgreSQL
> "core" group as well.

Is Marc or Bruce not a part of the 'Advocacy and Marketing Group' already?   
Let the Advocacy and Marketing group make their suggestions in the open forum 
of Hackers and see what is thought of it, just like everything else that has 
been done to this database.  There are five people on core; their skilset is 
varied enough to where any single point of view isn't dominant.  The who 
Hackers group drives the development.

> It's not that we need marketing... we need *consistent* marketing.

If a group of developers can make consistent advances in technology without a 
formal structure, why can't a group of marketers do the same?  The process is 
well known and fully documented in the archives of the hackers mailing list: 
you want a feature in PostgreSQL?  The first hurdle is to get it on the TODO.  
That's a Bruce item, and one that only happens with Hackers (and core) 
consensus.  The second hurdle is to get a developer with the chops to care 
about it enough to make it happen.  If I had the chops to do it, seamless 
upgrading would already be done.  No one with the chops cares enough about it 
to make it happen.  'Scratch the itch' the Free Software Mantra states.  The 
key is getting someone to itch for it that can successfully scratch it.  You 
must market to the hackers as much as to the users.

> than I have seen accepted.

Made sense to whom?

> However, your right in that this also demonstates we have a fairly
> tight-knit Community that will help one another out when needed, and that's
> all good.

Yes, we do have a tight community for the most part.

> > accept a voted-in core team for the Linux kernel.  He is also one who
> > governs as little as possible.

> Through delegation.  :)

If you'll note, core developers aren't the ones with exclusive commit 
privilege to CVS.  Many developers have commit privileges.  Many things are 
already delegated where it makes sense to do so.  Such as the RPMs.  

> People seem to get this confused a lot.  Why are you associating a
> successful method of organising resources (time, people, etc) with only
> commercial software projects?  _Any_ project that grows to various size
> points and wants to maintain it or keep on expanding will have to figure
> out ways of co-ordinating their time, efforts, communications, etc, that
> work for them appropriately at all of these size points.  That's just
> common sense.

Common sense is relative.  Why must a project expand to be successful?  Why is 
more always better?  We need more good developers, no doubt.  However, take a 
look at how many developers we already have.  Maybe we are already 
coordinating well.  

Sure, we can always improve.  However, I disagree that we must look to a 
different system to do it.

> Commercial Software projects and companies often use "models of
> organisation" that are proven to work, and although neither they nor us are
> limited to just those models, we don't need to write them off as being "not
> good enough" just because we don't like the other places that have employed
> them.

But you miss an important point.  We are all scratching an itch.  If this 
ceases to be fun and becomes more like work those of us who are doing this 
totally volunteer may just quit.  PostgreSQL is a hobby for me; while it 
makes sense for me in that I use PostgreSQL, I thoroughly enjoy knowing that 
what I am doing is helping people.  The current organization makes it easy 
for people to jump in (as long as they make the attempt to understand how we 
do things and the areas where we will not likely change (like the license -- 
it's BSD and that's that!) and try to work with us).

You are one who jumped in with some documentation (techdocs in particular); 
what was your experience in getting started?  It's very informal; I like 
that.

So I believe that the current 'by invitation only' core group is a good way 
for this project to continue.  Feel free to disagree; choice is good.
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

---

From: The Hermit Hacker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:13:42 -0300 (ADT)

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:

> Is Marc or Bruce not a part of the 'Advocacy and Marketing Group'
> already?  Let the Advocacy and Marketing group make their suggestions in
> the open forum of Hackers and see what is thought of it, just like
> everything else that has been done to this database.  There are five
> people on core; their skilset is varied enough to where any single point
> of view isn't dominant.  The who Hackers group drives the development.

Note that Justin is of the impression that "core" is a secret cabal :)
We've tried to educate him otherwis ... I think the last "really secret"
thing that we discussed on core was Greatbridge coming onto the scene,
everything else gets discussed on -hackers ... I really wish the Advocacy
guys would use the -advocacy list a bit more, mind you, since Justin is
right, there is alot of good that could be done, but that list has been
quite quiet ...

> > than I have seen accepted.

Bruce? Tom? Have I missed some core discussions?  Justin, can you
enlighten us on these ... ? *scratch head*  Since I do have available to
myself the archives of core, I'd love to go digging back if you have some
examples?

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:08:55 -0400

> varied enough to where any single point of view isn't dominant.

Actually I think Justin has a point: the core team consists of hackers.
I believe we do a decent job of leading technical development of
Postgres, but we're not well-qualified to lead marketing efforts.

It doesn't, however, follow that adding some marketing experts to core
would improve matters.  I think it'd just fragment our attention.
There's an advocacy/marketing group in place already, and it seems to
me they should just take the ball and run with it.  They don't need
core's approval to do the things they can do well.

I wouldn't mind seeing a "core marketing" team evolve to parallel the
existing "core technical" team.  But it won't happen by vote.  To the
extent that the hackers community listens to core on technical issues,
it's because we've achieved respect by hard work.  The core marketing
team has to step forward and win their credibility the same way.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Lamar Owen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:20:40 -0400

> To the

This hits the nail on the head, something you're usually pretty good at doing, 
Tom. 
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

---

From: Justin Clift <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:38:55 +0800

Tom Lane wrote:
<snip>
> team has to step forward and win their credibility the same way.

Hmmm, interesting idea, and very well put.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

---

From: Patrick Welche <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:00:55 +0100

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:53:36PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
... 
> look at how many developers we already have.  Maybe we are already 

.. and I was surprised to see essentially the same "more isn't better" as
one of the reasons for the Mozilla Firebird project:

http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/browser/README.html

(I like the quality over quantity point of view too)

Cheers,

Patrick

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jun 2003 10:33:11 -0400

> Postgres, but we're not well-qualified to lead marketing efforts.

Tom, you may not be qualified, but you have an uncanny ability to give
sage advice ;-)

> core's approval to do the things they can do well.

But we do need core's approval to add legitimacy to our efforts,
especially with some of the "marketing is bad" folks that live on
-hackers.  We also need core's approval to get infrastructure changes
put into place to help our efforts. 

> team has to step forward and win their credibility the same way.

This overlooks the fact that you can't earn credibility with some of our
community unless you hack on the back-end. The uproar over the 7.3 press
release was a fine example of what happens when the "advocacy" guys try
to make a change to something non-technical that the "technical" guys
don't approve of.

Robert Treat

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:56:22 -0400

Robert Treat <[email-masked]> writes:
>> existing "core technical" team.

> community unless you hack on the back-end.

That is the standard way to earn *technical* credibility in this
community, sure.  What I'm suggesting is that credibility in the
advocacy/marketing area is a different currency.  I still think
you have to earn the respect of your peers by hard work, but exactly
what that work is is quite different.  Being a geek with no clue
about marketing, I don't actually know how one would go about building
a reputation in this area.  I do know that having the technical core
team bless your efforts won't create any credibility of that kind,
because we have none to give.

> The uproar over the 7.3 press

AFAIR people didn't have a problem with the press release as press
release, they just said that what *they* wanted to read was a more
technically oriented document, and they were bemoaning the lack of one.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Diogo de Oliveira Biazus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:20:27 -0300

>because we have none to give.
This idea of a core marketing team is great, in my opinion.
So there will be some people realy focused on the press releases, case 
studies, advocacy site, events and such things, that are realy important 
and make the comunity stronger. The people working in this area would 
build their reputation based on this.
There's a interesting article on InfoWorld 
(http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/05/23/21OPconnection_1.html) that 
says: "A deeper examination of PostgresSQL suggests that it could be 
vastly under-hyped."

>technically oriented document, and they were bemoaning the lack of one.
Maybe the press release should have a link to a more technical doc.
IMHO the press release orientation was very good.

My regards,

-- 
Diogo de Oliveira Biazus
[email-masked]
Ikono Sistemas e Automação
http://www.ikono.com.br

---

From: Lamar Owen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:10:58 -0400

> to make a change to something non-technical that the "technical" guys

Well, a marketing team doesn't need credibility with the hackers as much as it 
needs credibility with the users.  Along that bent, the user-grade press 
release should not appear on Hackers.  Rather, a technical release-notes is  
needed there, concocted by core.

In order to be credible, one must neither underhype nor overhype -- but there 
is a correct mix of hype in there, because non-tech people love to be wowed.

And then we technical people need to let the marketing people do their thing, 
with core keeping the marketing people well-informed of what the release will 
actually do.

So I see a core marketing team having a least one person who, if not an active 
developer, actively follows hackers and understands the technical details of 
the coming release.  That person needs to have enough development chops to 
competently install and test a beta to see where it's going.  That person 
then needs to be able to translate the jargon into userspeak, and explain the 
draft userspeak document to the rest of the marketing core, who can then 
translate that into pressspeak for the press release.

The hardest part of this is the coordination of the effort -- first, making 
sure the timing is correct, and second making sure the facts are straight.  
This person will need to have a thick skin, because that position will get 
complaints from hacker and marketer alike.

And the developers who are not marketers need to let them do the job.  If you 
don't want the marketer to interfere with development, then don't interfere 
with marketing.  But the two cores will need to closely coordinate.  The 
liasons between them will need to be able to work well with both groups.

I prefer the developer-driven style, but I do understand that the typical user 
doesn't fully appreciate the fine points of the release notes.  And we CAN do 
a better job in communicating with people just how great PostgreSQL really 
is.  And that job isn't about facts, it's about impressions.  Impressions are 
more stubborn than facts, IME.

The current 'PostgreSQL Weekly News' is a great step in that direction, BTW.  
I still remember my first taste of Hackers; I thought that things moved kinda 
slow in here (because there never really was any meat on what was going on on 
the website).  Boy, was I ever wrong!

Getting the Linux, FreeBSD, and other geek news sites their press release is 
just as important, but, that's a different audience who needs a different 
press release.  ZDNet and its ilk could get the mainstream release, with only 
a link to the homepage.  The geek news gets a meatier press release, with 
links to the home page, downloads, and release notes.  And Hackers gets the 
release notes.  One size does not fit all.
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jun 2003 13:58:16 -0400

> liasons between them will need to be able to work well with both groups.

are people willing to delay releases for marketing purposes? we seem to
be into a nasty habit of release on holidays which means it has taken us
a few days to get all of the websites updated and emails sent out. if we
could get core to support the idea that a release date must get approval
from the advocacy guys before it can be announced that would be helpful.

that's the kind of issue that i see causing problems with the technical
side of the community and i'm not sure any amount of credibility with
the users will help.  

:-)

> release notes.  One size does not fit all.

i think the disconnect here is that in the past all aspects of marketing
postgresql have been made by the technical guys.  now you have a group
of people who want to change the way that things are done and if the new
people's decisions are going to override the previous policies that were
put in place, we need some form acceptance of that and the folks who i
see giving that acceptance is the core group. The press releases fall
into this category, since the current standard is that we don't make
announcements of "point" releases, but the advocacy group is recognizing
that something could be gained from spreading the word to right right
target audiences. Should we just go and do it?  I guess based on Tom's
post we should.

Robert Treat

---

From: Ian Linwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:10:20 +0100

Hello Dennis,

Thursday, June 12, 2003, 5:58:49 PM, you wrote:

> Bruce is one, and Tom Lane is the other. I think that Postgres's inertia is vulnerable to one of them dying.

ROFL
I just about drowned in my Stella when I read this.
You are a cheery chap, aren't you!  ;-)

If we all worried too much about things like this we'd be too busy
making our funeral arrangements on our mobiles to see the bus coming
around the corner!

Sorry to poke fun, but I find it very amusing to watch how this thread
has turned to discussing the deaths of contributors to the PostgreSQL
project.

-- 
Best regards,
 Ian

---

From: Dennis Gearon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:22:05 -0700

It is funny, but I'm an enjiineer, I what if everything!

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:49:10 -0400

> from the advocacy guys before it can be announced that would be helpful.

I don't have a problem with this; I've also thought that we chose odd
release dates without thinking about it.  For point releases it's
perhaps less important, but certainly major release dates ought to be
set with some consideration of how we'll put the word out.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: The Hermit Hacker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:06:10 -0300 (ADT)

> put into place to help our efforts.

Huh?  What infrastructure changes have ever gone through -core?

> to make a change to something non-technical that the "technical" guys

Actually, I thought at that time we had agreed to have two seperate press
releases (assuming that that is what you are talking about?) ... one
'marketing driven', and one 'technically driven'?

---

From: The Hermit Hacker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:16:52 -0300 (ADT)

> from the advocacy guys before it can be announced that would be helpful.

First off, all core does for stuff like this is sets the 'estimated
release date' ... look back through the archives, and I dont' think there
has been a release yet that has been "on time", and the dates have always
been pushed back due to discussions on -hackers ... and even as far as the
estimated release date is concerned, the gist of the discussion on -core
is "should we aim for a <enter date here> release?", to which the answers
are either "I have this one thing I'm working on, can we push it back a
bit?", or, if all is in agreement "sounds great, let's put it to -hackers
just to make sure that someone else doesn't have something they need a few
more days for" ...

So, pushing a release back a few days cause the advocacy folks haven't
been able to finish up a release notice is nothing ...

> target audiences. Should we just go and do it?  I guess based on Tom's

I think so too ... but, just curious ... we generally mention something on
-hackers at least a week before we do any point releases ... shouldn't
that be enough time to throw together a press release so that the release
doesn't have to be delayed?  same with major releases, there is such a
long, drawn out beta period before that, where features are frozen ...
shouldn't there be enough time in there to make one helluva powerful press
release?

---

From: "scott.marlowe" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:38:10 -0600 (MDT)

> We're not commercial software; why must we act like commercial software?

That's a tag line if ever I've seen one.

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jun 2003 18:03:06 -0400

> shouldn't there be enough time in there to make one helluva powerful press

I don't want to go into a detailed rehash of the releases, but out of
the last few we've had releases that were wrapped and/or packaged and
announcements sent out to the mailing lists and there was either no
mention on the websites, issues with the ftp mirrors, or no press
releases given. I know for 7.3.3 the actual release date got bumped
around enough I felt unsure when it came to reporting the release status
in the weekly news. 

Right now I believe there are two "release process" documents floating
around, one by the advocacy group, and one in the cvs.  We'll see how
well they work for the next release.

Robert Treat

---

From: Dennis Gearon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:07:35 -0700

OH BABY! You are so right Scott! I guffawed on THAT one!

scott.marlowe wrote:

> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>

---

From: The Hermit Hacker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:11:57 -0300 (ADT)

> well they work for the next release.

'K, well, let's start planning now ... what does it take to get the two
'merged' so that we're all on the same page? :)

---

From: Kaare Rasmussen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:04:29 +0200

> from the advocacy guys before it can be announced that would be helpful.

It is a point to address, but it doesn't have to be a big issue, if both 
groups can work together.

IIRC the release dates are accepted with some kind of consensus. This means 
that a core advocacy group would have a say.

Also, I don't see that press releases necessarily has to be made at the last 
minute. All the features of a major release will be in place weeks before the 
release date as there always will be beta testing.

-- 
Kaare Rasmussen            --Linux, spil,--        Tlf:        3816 2582
Kaki Data                tshirts, merchandize      Fax:        3816 2501
Howitzvej 75               Åben 12.00-18.00        Email: [email-masked]
2000 Frederiksberg        Lørdag 12.00-16.00       Web:      www.suse.dk

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:54:22 -0400

On Saturday 14 June 2003 12:06 am, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Getting the Linux, FreeBSD, and other geek news sites their press release
> > is just as important, but, that's a different audience who needs a
> > different press release.  ZDNet and its ilk could get the mainstream
> > release, with only a link to the homepage.  The geek news gets a meatier
> > press release, with links to the home page, downloads, and release notes.
> >  And Hackers gets the release notes.  One size does not fit all.
>
> ISTM Lamar's struck the nail pretty square on the head here.  We have
> several easily-identifiable audiences for release announcements.  We
> have to provide each audience with the material they want.
>

The current plan for the next major release is to write up a general press 
release to be distributed to -announce and to the list o' press contacts.  
It'll also go up on the various websites. However it *won't* be sent to the 
-hackers list.  This worked well the last time (save the hackers part) and I 
don't think anyone has brought up a reason to change it.

> I believe the current core team ("technical core" if you like that
> phrase) understands what sort of info the pgsql-hackers audience wants.
> I'm very happy to defer to someone else's judgement on how to present
> the same info to non-hacker audiences.
>
> Seems like the next problem is to figure out exactly who gets the last
> say in those decisions.  I made a lot of sweeping statements yesterday
> about earning one's respect by track record ... but I'm not sure what
> we do in the short run before anyone's established track records ...
>

we can sort that one out with whoever shows up on -advocacy.

Robert Treat

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 00:06:22 -0400

regards, tom lane

---

From: Justin Clift <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:21:52 +0800

Tom Lane wrote:
<snip>
 >  I made a lot of sweeping statements yesterday

That bit's easy.

The people in the Advocacy group who have already shown themselves to be 
extremely solid contributors and also very clueful are at least:

Josh Berkus
Robert Treat
er... myself  :-)

There are other solid contibutors too, but Josh and Robert have both 
demonstrated good contributor and leadership qualities, plus good common 
sense.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

---

From: Jan Wieck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:44:26 -0400

> from the advocacy guys before it can be announced that would be helpful.

I have no problem with that. More to the point, even things like the 
release numbering are (unfortunately) more of a marketing issue these 
days than reflecting any technical aspects.

> side of the community and i'm not sure any amount of credibility with

The latin word "credere" means trust. One can only proove that he's 
credible (trustworthy) if we let him.

Jan

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Jun 2003 10:32:43 -0400

<snip>
> release date as there always will be beta testing.

Just to clarify, by delay I mean "instead of release this Wednesday,
let's do it on Friday".  This should only be needed for purposes of
coordinating between the folks doing translations, sending emails,
updating the websites, setting up the ftp servers, and that type of
thing. I expect to start the press release process at the start of
feature freeze (July 1st).

Robert Treat