Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

Just a couple of points that I'd like to emphasize...

The EnterpriseDB Naming Poll
----------------------------
To those who haven't gone to the poll at postgres.enterprisedb.com, I'd
encourage you to do so. A freely available self-selected poll is a good
measurement approximation that is at least as good as the 100+ emails in
this thread.

I'm really not sure why, when invited to vote, people would stay away from
this poll. Isn't it the simplest way to get a quick view of how the people
in the discussion feel? Of course it's not scientifically and statistically
significant. It's an indicator, that's all. Just like the rest of this email
thread. If there's any concern about EnterpriseDB stuffing the vote, I
assure you that we simply put it up and left it at that.

Commercial Benefit
------------------
EnterpriseDB will receive zero commercial benefit from the name change.
Command Prompt may or may not. But none of this has anything to do with my
opinion on this topic. EnterpriseDB has already taken the position that we
wish to use Postgres in the name of the distribution we promote, and we have
moved forward with that. I don't believe there will be any problem *or* any
advantage if PostgreSQL/Postgres changes its name or not. I assure you all
that my motivation is simply to make a better, simpler, more pronounceable
name that doesn't call attention to a feature that is 10 years old.

Non-English Groups
------------------
I've carefully read all the objections, including those of the non-English
PG organizations. But I don't believe anyone against this proposal mentioned
that Alvaro strongly supported the name change from his (Spanish)
perspective.

Summary
-------
My take on the matter (one man's opinion, but based I think on reasonably
objective observation) is that there is a majority of support for the end
result of changing the name, and significant disagreement about timing and
implementation. To me, that suggests the need for a small task force to
develop an implementation strategy and plan. EnterpriseDB would be happy to
provide resources to help on this front.

I hope this is helpful.

-- Andy

On 9/2/07 8:19 AM, "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:

> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> On 9/1/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I could get over it, if this topic as well as the ugly Postgre sh*t it
>>> causes as a side effect would ever stop popping up. But it seems to me
>>> however often we "get over it", the problem only submerges to pop up
>>> again for the next release. Could it be that "getting over it" is kinda
>>> like playing ostrich - AGAIN, and that the numerous times we "got over
>>> it" only made the situation worse by reinforcing a mistake made long ago?
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>> I suggest we someday stop "getting over it" and instead "get done with
>>> it". Because rest assured, otherwise it'll be back again ... and again.
>>
>> Again, I agree. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it;
>> a seemingly continual trend in the Postgres community whether it's
>> feature or business-related. Ignoring a problem does not make it
>> disappear.
>
> same goes for ignoring problems the move might cause - like we had
> several of the large communities (french,italian and japanese) already
> objecting for a switch like that hurting them.
> And one other aspect is very much a problem too - we have WAY less
> control over a number of key postgres.* domains (postgres.jp is not
> registered, postgres.eu is registered to some weird place as is say
> postgres.at or postgres.us).
> And I suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg of related problems.
>
>
>>
>> Throughout this discussion, it seems like the majority of people
>> against the name change, with the exception of those from Greenplum
>> and EnterpriseDB, are those who have a financial stake in it. And, as
>> JD suggested that EnterpriseDB's brand could be strengthened by the
>> name change, I just wanted to say that EnterpriseDB has never
>> suggested, in any way, that its community members should support the
>> Postgres name. It is my own personal opinion that Postgres is a
>> better name.
>
> it might be a better name(or not) but a switch like that involves much
> more than simply saying "oh this is our new name" - I'm fairly convinced
> that playing games with our name will hurt us (and the active community
> at a large) for a while in a period where postgresql is gaining insight
> into a lot of places that it had not before and I'm not sure that
> changing names after years of years of having another will give
> confidence to (management style) people.
>
>>
>> I understand the valid concerns made by the Postgres user groups and
>> by Gabriele Bartolini over printed PostgreSQL stuff like shirts and
>> materials. Trust me, it *will* be fine to distribute them until they
>> run out. Perhaps a lot of people here haven't been on eBay lately,
>> because collectible IT stuff goes quickly. No one will have a problem
>> accepting a PostgreSQL t-shirt if the name changes to Postgres.
>
> well those people invested a lot of personal time and money into all
> that stuff (and I'm sure all that attended say pgday.it will fully
> agree) and either way you phrase it it will cost them money and time to
> come up with replacement merchandising.
> This is time and money invested from people on there own pocket not
> employed or supported by one of the dedicated postgresql companies or
> being payed to work on postgresql full time so you are actually asking a
> lot for here.
>
>
> Stefan