To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: alex@pilosoft.com, pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: DBD::Pg now without maintainer 
In-reply-to: <200210152200.g9FM01o17532@candle.pha.pa.us> 
References: <200210152200.g9FM01o17532@candle.pha.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
	message dated "Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:00:01 -0400"
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 23:00:12 -0400
Message-ID: <20420.1034737212@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> The beauty of this is that we don't need _a_ maintainer.  We can all get
> involved and make it better.  That's why I wanted it on gborg so many
> people could get involved.

Yeah.  Bruce and I were just discussing this point by phone the other
day.  Look at JDBC: it's advanced by leaps and bounds lately, because
quite a few people have been working on it.  The interfaces that have
been stagnant are the ones where there's only one designated
maintainer.  We need to move to a more open maintenance model.
Which is not to say that there shouldn't be some recognized key people
who know all about one package (cf Barry Lind and Dave Cramer's sterling
efforts for JDBC), but it's gotta be an open project.

Off-the-wall idea: it seems like the "core committee plus inner circle
of committers plus community" structure has worked pretty well for the
main server effort.  Maybe for the most popular interfaces like JDBC
and ODBC and DBD::Pg, we should consider some similar structure: appoint
a core committee of three or so people for each major interface, and let
them delegate commit rights as they see fit?  Or is that too much
bureaucracy?

			regards, tom lane