Re: New PostgreSQL Sponsorship Criteria

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
<jonathan(dot)katz(at)excoventures(dot)com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> In the examples at the bottom you refer to "full time contributors".
>> AFAIK, almost *no* PostgreSQL company has two employees that work full
>> time on contributing to PostgreSQL. They all do something else *as
>> well* (which might well be postgresql related). I'm not sure even
>> EnterpriseDB can claim to have that. I'm pretty sure you didn't
>> actually mean it has to be someone working full time on direct
>> contributions though - and in fact, I think it's a strength of our
>> development team in general that large parts of them don't *just* hack
>> on the code, but they actually work with the resulting product as
>> well. So while I'm pretty sure I agree with what you actually mean, I
>> think the wording needs some improvement.
>
> I think we had debated between using "major contributors" and "full-time contributors" as someone could employ multiple major contributors but that could be happenstance, i.e. they are major PG contributors but they work on it completely on their own time.

Yes.

> I'm ok with changing it to "major contributors" because really, the bullet points at the bottom are examples, not the criteria by which sponsors will be measured by.

Right, though I do wonder if there's a good way to phrase the real
intent well - something like:

a company which employs two major contributors to PostgreSQL allowing
them a significant amount of time to contribute to PostgreSQL.

Only better :-)

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company