Re: Steering committee responce to Great Bridge LLC

Hello all,

I responded to Ross' post yesterday, but it looks like my reply didn't make it
onto the list. So I'm re-sending... sorry for the delay:

--

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Let me refer you (and everyone else) to the
Slashdot discussion going on now... I think/hope it will answer a lot of your
questions.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/05/09/0927203&cid=118

I'll try to respond to a few points individually here too:

> From reading the PR materials available, it sounds like GreatBridge wants
> to Do the Right Thing. I'd like to see a little more up front about what
> being 'active contributing members of the [pgsql] community' means:
>
> Will GB follow the RedHat model, and commit to releasing code to any
> changes they make? (Note that RedHat has no choice in this for the Linux
> kernel) Or will there be a 'GreatBridge' version of pgsql, perhaps with
> extended features? I hope GB realizes that trying to take on the 'big
> boys' with proprietary extensions is unlikely to be a winning strategy.

Heck no. We have no interest in any kind of proprietary fork. As far as code
goes, everything we write will go straight back into the open source stew, for
proper review by the Committed.

> However, the big fear is: will GB take pgsql effectively
> private, by hiring away key developers?

Nope, because anyone who works for GB will also be working for the PostgreSQL
project.

> I hope they all maintain this same level of commitment to code
> quality, regardless of where their paycheck comes from. Having followed
> all the existing open source/commerical development projects currently
> under way, I think it's critical that GB not only adopt the open source
> license, but the open development model that has been so successful for
> pgsql to date.

Absolutely. We have no intention of supplanting the core group in peer review
/ patch approval. We expect that any PostgreSQL developers we hire will
continue in the role they currently have in the development process - and to
the extent that our other, internal developers create code, their work will
have to be judged in the same meritocracy as everyone else.

> What about if/when they go public? The legal commitment to maximizing
> stockholder value can play havoc with the best of intentions. I can only
> hope the the principals at GB have a real understanding of open source and
> open development, and remember the story of the goose and the golden eggs:
> short term gain could lead to long term loss.

I talk about this a little in the Slashdot thread - but the short answer is
that Landmark Communications, the parent company, has been privately held for
the better part of 100 years, and doesn't need public money or short-sighted
shareholders and day traders. We're in this for the long haul. When and if
we do decide to go public, it will only be because we think it's the best
thing for the core mission of the business - which is to support the adoption
of open source software solutions by mainstream business users. That's the
standard by which we'll judge all such strategic decisions.

> Welcome to GB, their people, and their new commitment to postgresql. We'll
> all be watching you closely, hoping you all can live up to the promise of
> helping make pgsql the success we (as it's users) know it can be.

Thanks! BTW, we're already users ourselves- a number of our businesses are
already using Postgres, and the level of use in some instances is significant
enough to merit a separate press release (more on that, of course, at the
appropriate time.. ;-)

Best,
Ned Lilly
VP, Hacker Relations