Re: PostgreSQL mission statement?

> > I don't know about you, but I want PostgreSQL to be the best, be
THE most
> > reliable. Omitting "best" or "most" from the statement means that
we should
> > all just give up now, because PostgreSQL is pretty damn good
already.
>
> i think a mission statement full of boastfulness is just a sound
bite, and
> will be dismissed as such.

Theres no reason Postgresql can't be the best in a good majority if
not all of the fields. Yeah, a few things are needed to accomplish
this -- but theres no reason it can't happen.

Anyway, most companies do something like 'Postgresql will become the
choice database'. That is, majority market share.

That said, they're dumb. They need to be changed once you meet the
goal.

A good mission statement should last the lifetime of the company /
department / project. WalMart actually has one of the better ones,
where their mission is to beat last years sales by x%. 3M will
innovate. HP would not release a product unless it offered the market
something new or better (they don't [ didn't for years anyway ] clone
others stuff and undercut them in price).

Perhaps Postgresql should have the mission of handling twice the
amount of data this year than last. That is, all collective
installations will maintain more stuff. Difficult to measure, but
would ensure we create / maintain the features required by big and
small databases. Currently those features appear to be relational
design, reliability, etc. Should the data storage requirements
change, Postgresql would have to follow in order to maintain it's
mission statement which is a good thing.

Goals should change, (being most reliable, or ANSI compliant) but
purpose should be consistent.

That said, skip the whole thing. I don't think we need something to
rally behind as it's kinda self explanatory why you'd donate time or
money to the project. It needs to meet your needs first, which
averaged out between all of the developers will meet those of most
others. DBs work that way, desktops often don't ;)