Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 01:31:45 -0400 (AST)
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
To: Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net>
cc: josh@agliodbs.com, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Launching PostgreSQL KB Project Mark 2
In-Reply-To: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E8D7@algol.sollentuna.se>
Message-ID: <20051206012421.Y1077@ganymede.hub.org>
References: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E8D7@algol.sollentuna.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> These are the same companies who keeps pledging to "work with the
> community" all the time? Apparantly this only applies to parts of the
> community, and in certain cases... Seems I have a lot of statements to
> reevaluate.
>
> If they're not willing to discuss things with the project members, can
> this really be called a community project? I'm doubtful.

First, I'm not for or against the "corporate KB project", just playing 
devils advocate here ...

But ... does anyone here have the time to implement a KB "as the 
community"?  If so, and since as several have pointed out, this has been 
discussed to death previously, why are we not just implementing it and 
moving forward, regardless of the 'corporate KB project'?

Gavin has put forth Framework(sp?) as a basis for this ... so why not jump 
on that and just do it, instead of arguing the merits/drawbacks of the 
Corporate Project that Josh is working on?

> Josh, in your original mail you said that there were companies willing
> to put resources behind such a project. Does this mean that they will
> dedicate staff time to the *continous maintaining of such a site in the
> future*, or just that they're interested in getting it started?

In theory, I would think that if done properly, the community should be 
able to sustain things once the seed has been created ... no?

> Because frankly, we clearly don't have enough people to maintain what we 
> have *today* (if we did, someone wouldn't have been able to hack into 
> our server through a piece of software that wasn't properly updated). If 
> we're going to add more to it, there'd better be some committment behind 
> it for actual maintenance.

In Josh's defence on this one ... you give him a pretty strong argument 
why this can't be community built, but has to be done by a corporate 
"group" ... manpower.

We had this thread/discussion several months back about implementing a 
replacement for techdocs/KB ... but, to date, has anything been done?  The 
feel I've gotten is that everything was resting on 'Gevik' for this, so 
that became our single point of failure ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664