Re: Who's a "Corporate Sponsor"?

Marc,

> Can we 'divide up' the page into area of contribution?  Code, for
> instance, would be at the top of the list, since, IMHO, that is the
> *significant* contribution ... I'd almost put documentation just after
> Code, in importance, since I do remember way back when when our docs
> royally sucked, but nobody wanted to work on that since "where is the
> prestige?"

That brings up something I didn't want to get into, which is "amount" and
"type" of contribution. It's tempting to divide stuff up by category, but
there's two major problems with it:

1) We have inadequate volunteers to keep listings up to date as it is.
Keeping contributions by category up to date would require even more work.

2) Already, we're just discussing a *general* corp contributors page and
already we have a debate over one company. It'll be much, much worse if we
have to argue about who's a "documentation contributor" vs. who's a "code
contributor".

> > 3) do add-ins count if they are completely externally hosted?
>
> I don't think so ... even stuff hosted on pgfoundry shouldn't really be
> included, IMHO ...

So the developers of phpPgAdmin don't count? And JDBC? And Slony? and
PostGIS? and eRServer? Do I make my point here? How does is benefit
PostgreSQL to exclude so many?

Given that over the next few years we can expect to put an increasing amount
of code into "add-ins" and less and less code into the core, I think not
listing optional add-in contributors would be very short-sighted.
*especially* since it's Core, NOT the contributors, who gets to decide what's
in the main code and what's not.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco