Re: Using Postgres as an alias

2007-09-27_09:42:59-0400 Andy Astor <andy(dot)astor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>:

> With respect, Ron, the majority of people in the original conversation were
> clearly in favor of a change, as Bruce has said.

Establishing a clear majority would presume that it was somehow decided
that this forum is the proper venue for deciding such things. When did
that happen? As I've said before, I'm on this forum, and I don't think
my vote should count. Why would anyone want to gerrymander the boundary
of this or that month's participation in an open mailling list as the
basis of PostgreSQL's governance? What rules of procedure are we
following here? As far as I can tell, the PostgreSQL project has no
political organization or structure whatsoever. I'm not saying that is
good or bad (I do think it's a larger more important issue than Postgres
vs. PostgreSQL though), but I do think anyone who posits that a name
change has been decided or that some kind of majority consensus was
established is jumping to conclusions.

> In this more recent thread, the most vocal opponents have made their
> opinions clear, but most of the original participants have not.

Well if this forum is where we take the measure of things, then we
should say the "most vocal opponents" are now in the majority, no? When
do the counts count, exactly?

> This does not appear to me to be a ³naming coup.² Just a reasoned
> response to the many opinions voiced over a reasonable period of time.

I disagree, and I don't think it is reasonable at all to presume to
change the official documentation such that it uses an abbreviation in
lieue of the official name.

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/