Re: New PostgreSQL Sponsorship Criteria

* Magnus Hagander (magnus(at)hagander(dot)net) wrote:
> > "an organization that employs two major contributors with permission to contribute to PostgreSQL"
> >
> > I would like to add something with "on company time" or "as part of their organizational requirements" but that sentence may be enough in itself. The point is that the organization provides the major contributor(s) the time to do so
>
> I think adding something like "on company time" is a good idea for
> that one. Otherwise it sounds like the default would somehow be to
> forbid employees to contribute to postgresql on their spare time as
> well...

"an organization that employs two major contributors" might simply be
enough. I feel like we're getting wrapped up a bit too much with this
notion that the company has to explicitly provide time for it, which
might be difficult for a variety of reasons. If they're major
contributors, chances are they get time at work to work on it. If the
*contributors* don't feel the company should be listed, then we
shouldn't list the company, but we can let them make that decision (it
should be up to them even if they *are* given some time to work on PG
explicitly..).

Thanks,

Stephen