Re: Is there really no interest in SQL Standard?

On Sunday, September 18, 2011, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On fre, 2011-09-16 at 08:59 -0500, Dave Page wrote:
>> You're missing my point completely. You say you represent PostgreSQL
>> on the SQL Committee (or German working group, but that's not the
>> point), yet the PostgreSQL hackers didn't know that, and were making
>> other plans less than 2 years ago. For me, a representative would have
>> been reporting back to us after each meeting, and discussing points to
>> raise before each meeting - not working in isolation, without the
>> knowledge of others.
>
> Let's not get into legalese. I don't think Susanne's point was the she
> was the sole and authoritative representative of the project. An
> alternative way to phrase this might be that she has been the only
> participant in committee meetings that has had PostgreSQL's concerns on
> her mind.

That is much more reasonable, though unfortunately not what was said.
Regardless, I stand by my main point that such a representative should be
communicating with the project regularly. Having a rep who works outside the
project is of no use at all.

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

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