Subject: Re: Launching PostgreSQL KB Project Mark 2

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:19:48 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 06 December 2005 05:22
> To: Robert Treat
> Cc: Dave Page; Josh Berkus; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Launching PostgreSQL KB Project Mark 2
> 
> Not saying it shouldn't be, or should ... just that if 
> everyone on this 
> list is so against it, there is nothing stopping this list 
> from developing 
> one that is developed by the community, instead of corporate 
> sponsors ...

We're not against it. I think the irkness (sp? :-) ) comes from the fact
that the ongoing project (Gevik had been regularly demo'ing his
progress) was essentially ripped out from here without our knowledge and
reformed on a pgFoundry site, and was about to be re-specced possibly in
complete contradition to what we had originally thrashed out - without
so much as a 'by your leave'.

Whilst I think we all appreciate the needs of the companies working with
us, and are grateful for their support, this is primarily a volunteer
community based project and that community deserves to be treated in the
right way. Without it, I have little doubt that the project (or specific
bits of it) would rapidly fall apart.

I hope however, that this unfortunate incident is behind us all now.

Regards, Dave

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:18:09 -0800

> reformed on a pgFoundry site,

So our whole gripe is that Gevik, who is the author of the project in 
the first place decided he wanted to
host the project on another community server during development?

Interesting...

Joshua D. Drake

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:37:59 -0400 (AST)

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> So our whole gripe is that Gevik, who is the author of the project in the 
> first place decided he wanted to

Actually, the way I've read the 'irkness' is that the -www list gets the 
feel that they have been drop'd in favor of another project that, for all 
intents and purposes has to date alientated -www and the previous work 
done towards what they felt was a similar goal ...

The feel was that it had gone from a "community project" to a "corporate 
project", which is definitely an easy perception to arrive at based on how 
it was first pitched ... it has definitely evolved from that, but where we 
are no is definitely not how the ball got started on this one ...

The other thing that has 'irked' those on -www was that the discussion has 
moved over to a very specific mailing list for a very specific 'CMS 
solution', while Josh has already stated that there has been no decision 
yet made on how the framework will come above ...

IMHO ... the big mistake was not creating a 'pgdn' project on pgfoundry, 
instead of piggy backing on the kennigres one like is being done ... piggy 
back like that gives the impression that a decision has been made to use 
that project ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email-masked]           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:37:27 -0800

Marc, All,

> instead of piggy backing on the kennigres one like is being done ... 
> piggy back like that gives the impression that a decision has been made 
> to use that project ...

Just so you're aware: Deleting a project off of pgFoundry is a painful 
process requring admin time on the server command line.  As the 
interitor of the SF.net code, GForge just never devoted much attention 
to dropping projects (SF.net has a policy never to do so).

So I wasn't about to start a new project which might be quickly 
discarded.   This will be true of other efforts in the future, as well 
... we just don't want to use a pgFoundry project for something temporary.

--Josh