| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Selena Deckelmann <selena(at)chesnok(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, damien clochard <damien(at)dalibo(dot)info>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jonathan(dot)katz(at)excoventures(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Heroku early upgrade is raising serious questions |
| Date: | 2013-04-09 18:01:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20130409180132.GV4361@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
* Selena Deckelmann (selena(at)chesnok(dot)com) wrote:
> Another important aspect of PostgreSQL is that we are a collective, rather
> than a company. We don't have, for example, a legal entity of record that
> could legitimately accept NDAs on behalf of our developers. (More than one
> vendor brought up "sign an NDA" as a way to get early access, and that's
> not a reasonable option for adding people to pgsql-security or
> pgsql-packagers.)
I wouldn't encourage this- but we do have a legal entity through SPI.
Were we, as a community, open to using 'signed an NDA' as sufficient
trust, using SPI as the entity could work. To be honest, I don't think
that we, collectively, feel that a signed NDA is sufficient.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Selena Deckelmann | 2013-04-09 18:05:20 | Re: Heroku early upgrade is raising serious questions |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-04-09 17:59:29 | Re: Heroku early upgrade is raising serious questions |