Re: 9.5 Release press coverage

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Umair Shahid <umair(dot)shahid(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > While such an implication is certainly not fair, when a statement like
> > "Latest version from EnterpriseDB includes a focus on big data and the
> > enterprise with row-level security and BRIN indexing" is the opening
> line of
> > an article, good people who have done good work on the release but don't
> > work at EDB have all the right to be upset.
>
> You're right. On the other hand, maybe good people who have done work
> on the release but DO work at EnterpriseDB also have a right to be
> upset. Several developers from other companies got mentioned by name
> in the postgresql.org release announcement, together with their
> company affiliations, but neither EnterpriseDB itself nor any
> EnterpriseDB employee nor any EnterpriseDB contribution are mentioned
> there, yet I seem to recall doing an enormous amount of work on
> PostgreSQL 9.5. That work includes, among other things, significant
> work on scalability that increases performance very significantly on
> large installations, and reviewing and committing lots of patches,
> including lots of patches by people who don't work here.
>

Thanks, Robert, for addressing all concerns raised on this forum
point-by-point. It helps tremendously to gain a better understanding.

Your concern here is as valid as the concern I have, I fully support you on
this. Perhaps, as you have suggested yourself, organizations should not be
mentioned at all in press releases from the community.

>
> And it's not like EnterpriseDB is alone in not getting credit. Tom
> Lane isn't credited, and neither is Andres, but both of them are
> absolutely critical community members with whom, I think it is fair to
> say, the release would be much worse than it is. Personally, I think
> it is a mistake to make our release announcements as commercial as
> this one clearly is. Some developers get credit by name and company,
> and others aren't mentioned at all, and in my view there's not very
> much correlation between depth of contribution and inclusion in the
> announcement. And I would venture that far more people are going to
> see the release announcement than are going to see that article, so in
> my view that's actually a much bigger problem. Anybody who knows the
> community is going to look at that article and say "this is garbage"
> and flush it, but the same people are going to look at the release
> announcement and note the conspicuous absence of EnterpriseDB (and Tom
> and Andres).
>
> > The least EDB can do is get the
> > article redacted and issue an apology to the community assuring them that
> > this will not happen again. Explanations about how EDB pays PR and they
> are
> > just human isn't helping ...
>
> I object to this for a couple of reasons. First, I've already said
> that we don't have editorial control over the article and several
> other prominent community members working at other PostgreSQL
> companies have confirmed that this matches their own experience. So
> you're asserting that the least we should do is more than the most
> that we and other community members are saying is possible. In other
> words, you seem to be asserting that the statements we made, and Josh
> and J.D. supported, are knowingly false. I have a number of vices,
> and many people on this list know what some of those vices are.
> However, I am not a liar.
>

My intention was certainly not to call you (or anyone else) a liar. I
apologise if I implied that.

What I did mean was that besides the lengthy explanations (which do help,
btw!), I would also like to know what efforts EDB is putting in to try and
not have a repeat of this. It would be helpful, as an example, to know if
you have communicated this discussion & concerns internally.

Do note, however, that my email went out before the
statements/confirmations from the community members came in.

>
> Second, it is unreasonable for a promise that nobody will ever again
> publish an article that makes EnterpriseDB sound more important than
> it actually is. That would require us to have perfect editorial
> control not only over this journalist, but over all journalists. If
> you can explain how our PR department is supposed to accomplish that,
> I am sure they will be all ears. To me, it sounds like you are asking
> for the impossible.
>

With the explanations you gave, I understand better that this can not be
guaranteed. I am sure, however, that there are steps that EDB can take to
try and avoid such stuff. As an example, when talking to journalists, they
can make sure the interviewee is very clear about PostgreSQL being a
community effort, rather than an EDB product.

>
> Third, you used to work at EnterpriseDB. If, as I'm sure somebody
> here will be quick to assert, this is part of a pattern of
> EnterpriseDB conduct that is easily fixed by some simple action,
> perhaps you should have taken that action while you were here. If, on
> the other hand, this is an isolated incident, then I really don't see
> a need for anybody to fall on their sword.
>

Now that’s getting personal, but that’s ok. Yes, I used to work at EDB ...
5 years ago ... when this wasn't a problem. The posturing was very
different back then, community members on EDB's payroll were constantly and
actively advising the team on what the community might get offended by and
what type of statements to avoid. Is that still happening?

>
> Personally, I think all of this finger-pointing is both overblown and
> mostly pointing in the wrong direction, for the reasons articulated
> above. I suggest we get back to the business of promoting PostgreSQL
> and check whatever antagonism there may be between our respective
> employers up to friendly competition.
>

As JD said, it’s done … can’t really do anything about it now. I won’t be
writing on this thread any more.

>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>