Re: PostgreSQL mission statement?

Just out of curiosity, does PostgreSQL have a mission statement?

If so, where could I find it?

If not, does anyone see a need?

(No, I am not some rabid MBA, but it may be useful to have for those rabid MBAs
with whom I must deal.)

mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> Just out of curiosity, does PostgreSQL have a mission statement?

Nope. Given the wide variety of views among the developer community,
I think we'd have a tough time agreeing on a mission statement, unless
it was so generic as to be meaningless ...

regards, tom lane

> mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> > Just out of curiosity, does PostgreSQL have a mission statement?

> Nope. Given the wide variety of views among the developer community,
> I think we'd have a tough time agreeing on a mission statement, unless
> it was so generic as to be meaningless ...

Well, I think one of the things that has been agreed on that _isn't_
that generic is:
"We use a Berkeley style license, and prefer it that way."

:-)
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html
To err is human, to moo bovine.

On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:24:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, does PostgreSQL have a mission statement?
>
> If so, where could I find it?
>
> If not, does anyone see a need?

"Provide a really good database and have fun doing it"

--
David Terrell | "War is peace,
Prime Minister, Nebcorp | freedom is slavery,
dbt(at)meat(dot)net | ignorance is strength
http://wwn.nebcorp.com/ | Dishes are clean." - Chris Fester

cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com wrote:
> > mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> > > Just out of curiosity, does PostgreSQL have a mission statement?
>
> > Nope. Given the wide variety of views among the developer community,
> > I think we'd have a tough time agreeing on a mission statement, unless
> > it was so generic as to be meaningless ...
>
> Well, I think one of the things that has been agreed on that _isn't_
> that generic is:
> "We use a Berkeley style license, and prefer it that way."

Does that now count as a mission? Whow, didn't know that I am
on a mission! What in our mission is mission critical? What
are our defined mission goals?

Jan :-)

>
> :-)
> --
> (concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org")
> http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html
> To err is human, to moo bovine.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com wrote:
>
> > mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> > > Just out of curiosity, does PostgreSQL have a mission statement?
>
> > Nope. Given the wide variety of views among the developer community,
> > I think we'd have a tough time agreeing on a mission statement, unless
> > it was so generic as to be meaningless ...
>
> Well, I think one of the things that has been agreed on that _isn't_
> that generic is:
> "We use a Berkeley style license, and prefer it that way."

No! no! no! Don't even kid like that. EVERY time that debate is even mentioned,
it goes on for days.

Le Jeudi 2 Mai 2002 01:59, David Terrell a écrit :
> "Provide a really good database and have fun doing it"

PostgreSQL Community is commited to providing Humanity with the best
multi-purpose, reliable, open-source and free database system.

> Le Jeudi 2 Mai 2002 01:59, David Terrell a écrit :
> > "Provide a really good database and have fun doing it"
>
> PostgreSQL Community is commited to providing Humanity with the best
> multi-purpose, reliable, open-source and free database system.
>

How about "We can store your data" ?

Just a late night thought...

dali

Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
>
> Le Jeudi 2 Mai 2002 01:59, David Terrell a écrit :
> > "Provide a really good database and have fun doing it"
>
> PostgreSQL Community is commited to providing Humanity with the best
> multi-purpose, reliable, open-source and free database system.

The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining the best,
most reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards based database, and with it,
promote free and open source software world wide.

Who's that? Anyone disagree?

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:15:15AM -0400, mlw wrote:
> Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
> > Le Jeudi 2 Mai 2002 01:59, David Terrell a écrit :
> > > "Provide a really good database and have fun doing it"
> >
> > PostgreSQL Community is commited to providing Humanity with the best
> > multi-purpose, reliable, open-source and free database system.
>
>
> The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining the best,
> most reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards based database, and with
> it, promote free and open source software world wide.
>
> Who's that? Anyone disagree?

why does it have to be THE BEST ? that is insulting to the other projects
like MySQL which while "competitors" are also a valid and useful benchmark
for features, performance and keeping the postgresql community on its
collective toes.

postgresql is not THE BEST in all applications, so calling it that is inviting
derision and pointless arguments.

i'd go with:

The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining a very
reliable, open-source, multi-purpose, standards-based database, and
encouraging participation in open-source usage and development world wide.

--
[ Jim Mercer jim(at)reptiles(dot)org +1 416 410-5633 ]
[ I want to live forever, or die trying. ]

Jim Mercer wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:15:15AM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
> > > Le Jeudi 2 Mai 2002 01:59, David Terrell a écrit :
> > > > "Provide a really good database and have fun doing it"
> > >
> > > PostgreSQL Community is commited to providing Humanity with the best
> > > multi-purpose, reliable, open-source and free database system.
> >
> >
> > The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining the best,
> > most reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards based database, and with
> > it, promote free and open source software world wide.
> >
> > Who's that? Anyone disagree?
>
> why does it have to be THE BEST ? that is insulting to the other projects
> like MySQL which while "competitors" are also a valid and useful benchmark
> for features, performance and keeping the postgresql community on its
> collective toes.

This is interesting, a mission statement isn't necessarily about "what is" but
about what we "want to do," what it is that we "intend to do," i.e. "our
mission." It is vital that a mission statement contain the superlatives.
Mediocrity has no place here.

I don't know about you, but I want PostgreSQL to be the best, be THE most
reliable. Omitting "best" or "most" from the statement means that we should all
just give up now, because PostgreSQL is pretty damn good already.

Is this an indication of a need for pgsql-marketing(at)postgresql(dot)org? :)

I like:

We'll store your data; if we think it'll be an interesting enough
diversion for us.

--
Nigel Andrews

On Thu, 2 May 2002, mlw wrote:

> Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
> >
> > Le Jeudi 2 Mai 2002 01:59, David Terrell a écrit :
> > > "Provide a really good database and have fun doing it"
> >
> > PostgreSQL Community is commited to providing Humanity with the best
> > multi-purpose, reliable, open-source and free database system.
>
>
> The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining the best,
> most reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards based database, and with it,
> promote free and open source software world wide.
>
> Who's that? Anyone disagree?

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:43:04AM -0400, mlw wrote:
> Jim Mercer wrote:
> > why does it have to be THE BEST ? that is insulting to the other projects
> > like MySQL which while "competitors" are also a valid and useful benchmark
> > for features, performance and keeping the postgresql community on its
> > collective toes.
>
> This is interesting, a mission statement isn't necessarily about "what is" but
> about what we "want to do," what it is that we "intend to do," i.e. "our
> mission." It is vital that a mission statement contain the superlatives.
> Mediocrity has no place here.
>
> I don't know about you, but I want PostgreSQL to be the best, be THE most
> reliable. Omitting "best" or "most" from the statement means that we should
> all just give up now, because PostgreSQL is pretty damn good already.

i think a mission statement full of boastfulness is just a sound bite, and
will be dismissed as such.

if you want the mission statement to have an impact, then it needs to be
acceptable not only to those who fully embrace it, but also acceptable to
those who will respect the project from a distance.

otherwise its not a mission statement, its akin to a corporate cheer.
( i'm picturing Steve Balmer's superlative exhaltations to the converted
http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html )

--
[ Jim Mercer jim(at)reptiles(dot)org +1 416 410-5633 ]
[ I want to live forever, or die trying. ]

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 01:43:39PM +0100, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> I like:
>
> We'll store your data; if we think it'll be an interesting enough
> diversion for us.

gets my vote.

8^)

--
[ Jim Mercer jim(at)reptiles(dot)org +1 416 410-5633 ]
[ I want to live forever, or die trying. ]

> > I don't know about you, but I want PostgreSQL to be the best, be
THE most
> > reliable. Omitting "best" or "most" from the statement means that
we should
> > all just give up now, because PostgreSQL is pretty damn good
already.
>
> i think a mission statement full of boastfulness is just a sound
bite, and
> will be dismissed as such.

Theres no reason Postgresql can't be the best in a good majority if
not all of the fields. Yeah, a few things are needed to accomplish
this -- but theres no reason it can't happen.

Anyway, most companies do something like 'Postgresql will become the
choice database'. That is, majority market share.

That said, they're dumb. They need to be changed once you meet the
goal.

A good mission statement should last the lifetime of the company /
department / project. WalMart actually has one of the better ones,
where their mission is to beat last years sales by x%. 3M will
innovate. HP would not release a product unless it offered the market
something new or better (they don't [ didn't for years anyway ] clone
others stuff and undercut them in price).

Perhaps Postgresql should have the mission of handling twice the
amount of data this year than last. That is, all collective
installations will maintain more stuff. Difficult to measure, but
would ensure we create / maintain the features required by big and
small databases. Currently those features appear to be relational
design, reliability, etc. Should the data storage requirements
change, Postgresql would have to follow in order to maintain it's
mission statement which is a good thing.

Goals should change, (being most reliable, or ANSI compliant) but
purpose should be consistent.

That said, skip the whole thing. I don't think we need something to
rally behind as it's kinda self explanatory why you'd donate time or
money to the project. It needs to meet your needs first, which
averaged out between all of the developers will meet those of most
others. DBs work that way, desktops often don't ;)

On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 14:37, Jim Mercer wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:15:15AM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > Who's that? Anyone disagree?
>
> why does it have to be THE BEST ? that is insulting to the other projects
> like MySQL which while "competitors" are also a valid and useful benchmark
> for features, performance and keeping the postgresql community on its
> collective toes.
>
> postgresql is not THE BEST in all applications, so calling it that is inviting
> derision and pointless arguments.
>

The Politically Correct mission statement follows:

The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining a good
but not the best, mostly reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards
based database, and with it, promote free and open source software and
other worthy causes world wide and to not hurting anyones feelings in doing so.
We are also committed to not cheating our SOs, not charging too much for
our services nor eating too much and to recommending products of our
commercial competitors before ours in order to help them fullfil their
obligations to their stockholders.

I was hoping to fit in something about being a good
Christian/Muslim/Atheist but was unable to do it in an universally
acceptable way.
There may be other points that are not valid everywhere though.

BTW, I think PostgreSQL does _not_ need any mission statement.

-------------
Hannu

The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining the best,
most reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards based database, and with
it, promote free(dom) and open source software world wide.

I hope you don't mind writing "free(dom)" with the idea of fighting patent
abuses.

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Thursday 02 May 2002 08:56 am, Jim Mercer wrote:
> i think a mission statement full of boastfulness is just a sound bite, and
> will be dismissed as such.

> if you want the mission statement to have an impact, then it needs to be
> acceptable not only to those who fully embrace it, but also acceptable to
> those who will respect the project from a distance.

> otherwise its not a mission statement, its akin to a corporate cheer.
> ( i'm picturing Steve Balmer's superlative exhaltations to the converted
> http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html )

In the corporate world a mission statement is often the 'sound bite' and a
'corporate cheer'.

I personally think
"To have fun making and improving the most extensible, robust, ACID-compliant
Free database system on the planet" wraps up at least why I think we're all
here. s/Free/Open Source/g if you'd rather not invoke a stallmanism. Or
even s/Free/BSD-licensed/g if you want to really state the obvious. :-)

If other projects' members are insulted by that, then they're just too
sensitive.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
>
> The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining the best,
> most reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards based database, and with
> it, promote free(dom) and open source software world wide.
>
> I hope you don't mind writing "free(dom)" with the idea of fighting patent
> abuses.

No, the mission statement is about what the postgresql group, as a whole, is
all about.

I know it seems silly to have such a thing, but really, the more I read on this
discussion, the more it seems like it is a useful "call to arms" for developers
and users alike.

Now, I do not wish to have a manifesto, but a short and sweet "this is who we
are, and this is what we do" could be a positive thing.

P.S. I think every software engineer worth anything should fight software
patents. If Donald Knuth didn't patent his algorithms, practically none of us
deserve patents. I mean seriously, most of the software patents are trivial and
obvious. Knuth did something, most of us only build on his work.

On Thu, 2 May 2002, mlw wrote:

> Jim Mercer wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:15:15AM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
> > > > Le Jeudi 2 Mai 2002 01:59, David Terrell a crit :
> > > > > "Provide a really good database and have fun doing it"
> > > >
> > > > PostgreSQL Community is commited to providing Humanity with the best
> > > > multi-purpose, reliable, open-source and free database system.
> > >
> > >
> > > The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining the best,
> > > most reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards based database, and with
> > > it, promote free and open source software world wide.
> > >
> > > Who's that? Anyone disagree?
> >
> > why does it have to be THE BEST ? that is insulting to the other projects
> > like MySQL which while "competitors" are also a valid and useful benchmark
> > for features, performance and keeping the postgresql community on its
> > collective toes.
>
> This is interesting, a mission statement isn't necessarily about "what is" but
> about what we "want to do," what it is that we "intend to do," i.e. "our
> mission." It is vital that a mission statement contain the superlatives.
> Mediocrity has no place here.
>
> I don't know about you, but I want PostgreSQL to be the best, be THE most
> reliable. Omitting "best" or "most" from the statement means that we should all
> just give up now, because PostgreSQL is pretty damn good already.

altho in most contexts, I would agree with Jim as to the use of 'The
Best', for any mission statement to say anything other then that, IMHO,
shows a lack of commitment ... I agree with mlw on this one, the mission
statement is what we are *striving* for ... where we eventually want to
get to ... if we aren't "The Best", then there is someone better then us
that we have to work that much harder to become better then ...

I personally like mlw's wording ...

On 2 May 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 14:37, Jim Mercer wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:15:15AM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > Who's that? Anyone disagree?
> >
> > why does it have to be THE BEST ? that is insulting to the other projects
> > like MySQL which while "competitors" are also a valid and useful benchmark
> > for features, performance and keeping the postgresql community on its
> > collective toes.
> >
> > postgresql is not THE BEST in all applications, so calling it that is inviting
> > derision and pointless arguments.
> >
>
> The Politically Correct mission statement follows:
>
> The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining a good
> but not the best, mostly reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards

Okay, so there now has to be someone always better then us, since we don't
want to be the best? *confused look*

> BTW, I think PostgreSQL does _not_ need any mission statement.

Nope, it doesn't ... never did before, don't know why it does suddenly ...
do any other open source projects have one? Its kinda fun to see what ppl
banter around, but I can't see it being useful to adopt any single one,
considering I can't see *everyone* agreeing with it ...

On Thu, 2 May 2002, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:

>
>
> Is this an indication of a need for pgsql-marketing(at)postgresql(dot)org? :)

already exists as pgsql-advocacy :)

"Marc G. Fournier" wrote:

> > BTW, I think PostgreSQL does _not_ need any mission statement.
>
> Nope, it doesn't ... never did before, don't know why it does suddenly ...
> do any other open source projects have one? Its kinda fun to see what ppl
> banter around, but I can't see it being useful to adopt any single one,
> considering I can't see *everyone* agreeing with it ...

We as developers do not need mission statements, per se' but it is often useful
as something to point to.

I am writing a business plan for my company and I was looking for PostgreSQL's
mission statement. Of course I did not see one. It is very interesting seeing
what people are coming up with.

IMHO, if we can come up with a strong, positive statement, it would help MBA
trained CIOs and CTOs choose PostgreSQL. To them, it will show a professional
minded development group, it will be recognizable to them.

[ please try not to take this too seriously ]

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 01:11:41PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> altho in most contexts, I would agree with Jim as to the use of 'The
> Best', for any mission statement to say anything other then that, IMHO,
> shows a lack of commitment ... I agree with mlw on this one, the mission
> statement is what we are *striving* for ... where we eventually want to
> get to ... if we aren't "The Best", then there is someone better then us
> that we have to work that much harder to become better then ...

that's right, we have to work harder to STOMP OUT ALL COMPETITION!

in fact, we should stop giving free access to the source, as our competitors
might use the code to make their product better than ours.

if we aren't THE BEST, then all those stock options are worthless!

we could increase our chances of being the best by infiltrating the CVS
tree of MySQL and the other projects stealing our thunder and injecting
bugs into their code.

i mean, if we want to be THE BEST, why should we stop at mere rhetoric?

to be THE BEST, you need to dominate, good quality design and code are not
the complete recipe for being THE BEST.

THE BEST implies that no-one else compares, and we can completely demoralize
the competition, thereby eliminating the competition.

in all seriousness, i think that this attitude of being THE BEST goes against
the philosophy of Open Source.

if your source is open and available for modification/improvement/localization,
then there will always be a chance for someone to run with it and make
improvements.

what is THE BEST Unix-based system? Linux? Debian? RedHat? FreeBSD? NetBSD?
OpenBSD? Solaris? Minix? Qnix?

if any of them claimed to be THE BEST Unix, we'd all laugh.

none of them are THE BEST, but all of them strive to be as good as they
can make them, and all of them borrow from each other in order to make
their version better in the eyes of their audience.

--
[ Jim Mercer jim(at)reptiles(dot)org +1 416 410-5633 ]
[ I want to live forever, or die trying. ]

On Wed, 1 May 2002, David Terrell wrote:

> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:24:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, does PostgreSQL have a mission statement?
> >
> > If so, where could I find it?
> >
> > If not, does anyone see a need?
>
> "Provide a really good database and have fun doing it"

Motto: "The best damned database money can't buy"

:-)

mlw wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
>
> > > BTW, I think PostgreSQL does _not_ need any mission statement.
> >
> > Nope, it doesn't ... never did before, don't know why it does suddenly ...
> > do any other open source projects have one? Its kinda fun to see what ppl
> > banter around, but I can't see it being useful to adopt any single one,
> > considering I can't see *everyone* agreeing with it ...
>
> We as developers do not need mission statements, per se' but it is often useful
> as something to point to.

Yupp. As PostgreSQL developers we are simply committed to
make commit what others need to commit to PostgreSQL.

If we ever define something like a mission statement, it
should be named "The 10 commitments" anyway, no?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

On 2 May 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:

> The Politically Correct mission statement follows:
>
> The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining a good
> but not the best, mostly reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards
> based database, and with it, promote free and open source software and
> other worthy causes world wide and to not hurting anyones feelings in doing so.
> We are also committed to not cheating our SOs, not charging too much for
> our services nor eating too much and to recommending products of our
> commercial competitors before ours in order to help them fullfil their
> obligations to their stockholders.

As a practicing polyamorist, I find the part about not cheating on our SOs
highly offensive. :-)

> We as developers do not need mission statements, per se' but it is
often useful
> as something to point to.

It's comforting and useful to point to; in addition, developers
work on something because of personal "itches" (to coin a phrase)
that happen to broadly overlap with the group

> IMHO, if we can come up with a strong, positive statement, it would
help MBA
> trained CIOs and CTOs choose PostgreSQL. To them, it will show a
professional
> minded development group, it will be recognizable to them.

I think this is an excellent point, especially since I'd say that one of
the
implicit goals of the PG project is for the database to be *used* ;)
- and the corporate world in some form or another represents probably
the
largest user base.

This reasoning is a bit dicey b/c playing PR games really isn't fun
after
the initial rush, and I don't think anyone really wants catering to the
corporate world to be first and foremost in their minds.

To this end, if a mission statement is adopted, it should probably be
a very dynamic document that remains capable of both engaging CIOs/CTOs
and intriguing developers as the vision and the landscape change.
A mission statement that is agonized over (and takes time away from
development),
finally adopted, and then allowed to become obsolete does PG no good.

Should you guys hold a vote to see who wants a mission statement (and
who
wants to write one or compile all the suggestions here into a nice form)
and then work from there? I'm not exactly familiar with the procedures
here.

thanks for listening to my rambling,
Michael Locasto

Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:

> On Wed, 1 May 2002, David Terrell wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:24:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > Just out of curiosity, does PostgreSQL have a mission statement?
> > >
> > > If so, where could I find it?
> > >
> > > If not, does anyone see a need?
> >
> > "Provide a really good database and have fun doing it"
>
> Motto: "The best damned database money can't buy"

I don't think that any of the PostgreSQL developers would want, in any
way shape or form, to suggest that you can't pay money for PostgreSQL.
Nor are they likely to limit themselves to competing with free
(libre/gratis) databases.

Some of them might even object to the use of the word "damn" :).

Jason

On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 04:25, mlw wrote:

>
> IMHO, if we can come up with a strong, positive statement, it would help MBA
> trained CIOs and CTOs choose PostgreSQL. To them, it will show a professional
> minded development group, it will be recognizable to them.

I am not so sure about that -

In my experience the things that those guys use to decide on products
are :

1) reference sites
2) official support

(and they like to pay for a product 'cause they are used to doing
it...but lets not go there...)

Personally I find the lack of "business-speak" things (like mission
statements) refeshing, and I see it as part of the "values" that
differentiate open source / community based products from commercial
ones.

just my NZ4c (=US2c)

Mark

On 2 May 2002, Jason Earl wrote:

> Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 1 May 2002, David Terrell wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:24:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > > Just out of curiosity, does PostgreSQL have a mission statement?
> > > >
> > > > If so, where could I find it?
> > > >
> > > > If not, does anyone see a need?
> > >
> > > "Provide a really good database and have fun doing it"
> >
> > Motto: "The best damned database money can't buy"
>
> I don't think that any of the PostgreSQL developers would want, in any
> way shape or form, to suggest that you can't pay money for PostgreSQL.
> Nor are they likely to limit themselves to competing with free
> (libre/gratis) databases.

True, but my point wasn't that you could pay for it, but that it couldn't
be "bought" like so many other things (think politicians, OEMs, judges,
etc...) But I was pretty much just foolin' around. :-)

So how about:

"Postgresql: Open Source, Open Standards, Open Development, Open Minds"

...
> Now, I do not wish to have a manifesto, but a short and sweet "this is who we
> are, and this is what we do" could be a positive thing.

"PostgreSQL is the most advanced open-source database available
anywhere"

has appeared in the docs for quite some time, and has appeared in other
mention of PostgreSQL (release announcements etc).

A short and sweet mission statement could describe what we do to make
this true, and what we must continue to do to stay on top. Or we could
leave it general; for example, "most advanced" could mean wrt standards
compliance, or wrt leading edge features, or wrt performance, or ?? Let
us decide what those specifics are as we go along...

"PostgreSQL is and will be the most advanced open-source database
available anywhere."

No different in substance from what we've said all along. Leave out the
specifics, because the next generations of developers will have specific
directions to go :)

- Thomas

Mark kirkwood wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 04:25, mlw wrote:
>
> >
> > IMHO, if we can come up with a strong, positive statement, it would help MBA
> > trained CIOs and CTOs choose PostgreSQL. To them, it will show a professional
> > minded development group, it will be recognizable to them.
>
> I am not so sure about that -
>
> In my experience the things that those guys use to decide on products
> are :
>
> 1) reference sites
> 2) official support
>
> (and they like to pay for a product 'cause they are used to doing
> it...but lets not go there...)
>
> Personally I find the lack of "business-speak" things (like mission
> statements) refeshing, and I see it as part of the "values" that
> differentiate open source / community based products from commercial
> ones.

A mission statement is like a tie.

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:41:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> A mission statement is like a tie.

straw vote!

who on the list wears ties?

--
[ Jim Mercer jim(at)reptiles(dot)org +1 416 410-5633 ]
[ I want to live forever, or die trying. ]

Jim Mercer wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:41:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > A mission statement is like a tie.
>
> straw vote!
>
> who on the list wears ties?

How many people who make IT decisions wear ties?

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:14:03PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> Jim Mercer wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:41:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > A mission statement is like a tie.
> >
> > straw vote!
> >
> > who on the list wears ties?
>
> How many people who make IT decisions wear ties?

too many.

--
[ Jim Mercer jim(at)reptiles(dot)org +1 416 410-5633 ]
[ I want to live forever, or die trying. ]

Jim Mercer wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:14:03PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > Jim Mercer wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:41:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > > A mission statement is like a tie.
> > >
> > > straw vote!
> > >
> > > who on the list wears ties?
> >
> > How many people who make IT decisions wear ties?
>
> too many.

I'm sorry I started this thread.

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:45:45PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> Jim Mercer wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:14:03PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > Jim Mercer wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:41:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > > > A mission statement is like a tie.
> > > > who on the list wears ties?
> > > How many people who make IT decisions wear ties?
> > too many.
> I'm sorry I started this thread.

don't be sorry.

i'm not big on wearing the corporate suit, be it physically, or figuratively.

that's my opinion, and i'm stating it.

your opinion differs, and that's fine.

i've had to do the corporate "mission statement" dance, as well as a bunch
of other hokey crap that didn't matter squat to the bottom line due to the
fact that the execs read some magazine article or attended some Tony Robbins
-esque motivational session.

when i hear "mission statement" and "quality circle" and "internal customer",
i cringe.

if the corporate management doesn't want to buy into the Open Source concept,
fuck 'em.

i've had a number of installations where due to management panic to get
something working, it was implemented using Open Source. Only to have
a perfectly good system replaced with "real software" when management
finds out 6 months later that it is using Open Source.

i have had successes in getting Open Source into corporate environments,
but only after battling mega-politics with CIO/CFO and MSCE IT managers
who only want to see Microsoft or Sun Solaris solutions.

we did a project using FreeBSD and Samba to replace a number of highly
unstable NT file/print servers.

recently, some consultants (friends of the managing partners) said that
it was a bad idea to use "Public Domain software that was full of bugs
and highly insecure".

when we pointed out that the servers hadn't rebooted in 160 days, and
that they were protected by both RFC1918 addressing and a firewall, the
consultants backed off a bit.

then they returned spouting the same "full of bugs and highly insecure" crap.

now management is going to have them re-implement the network using the
latest NT stuff.

this is a long winded way of saying that my feeling is the type of MBA
CFO/CIO that is impressed by a mission statement, is probably not going
to buy into technology that isn't listed on NASDAQ.

so, what's the harm in having one?

probably not much, but to me it smells of corporate bullshit.

--
[ Jim Mercer jim(at)reptiles(dot)org +1 416 410-5633 ]
[ I want to live forever, or die trying. ]

Jim Mercer wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:45:45PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > Jim Mercer wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:14:03PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > > Jim Mercer wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:41:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > > > > A mission statement is like a tie.
> > > > > who on the list wears ties?
> > > > How many people who make IT decisions wear ties?
> > > too many.
> > I'm sorry I started this thread.
>
> don't be sorry.
>
> i'm not big on wearing the corporate suit, be it physically, or figuratively.

Trust me, nor am I. I haven't warn a suit professionally since the '80s.

>
> that's my opinion, and i'm stating it.
>
> your opinion differs, and that's fine.

Don't be so sure.

>
> i've had to do the corporate "mission statement" dance, as well as a bunch
> of other hokey crap that didn't matter squat to the bottom line due to the
> fact that the execs read some magazine article or attended some Tony Robbins
> -esque motivational session.

Yes I know. Been there done that.

>
> when i hear "mission statement" and "quality circle" and "internal customer",
> i cringe.

Ditto.

>
> if the corporate management doesn't want to buy into the Open Source concept,
> fuck 'em.

He is where we differ. There is merit in displaying an amount of understanding
of the corporate personality. I am not a corporate type, but I understand that
there are people that are, and to promote PostgreSQL, we need to reach them.

It is not selling out to use chopsticks at a chinese dinner, it is following
custom. A mission statement is similar. These people are brainwashed to look at
the mission statement. Having one for them to look at is not a bad idea.
>
> i've had a number of installations where due to management panic to get
> something working, it was implemented using Open Source. Only to have
> a perfectly good system replaced with "real software" when management
> finds out 6 months later that it is using Open Source.

Presenting a corporate aware culture will help them.

> i have had successes in getting Open Source into corporate environments,
> but only after battling mega-politics with CIO/CFO and MSCE IT managers
> who only want to see Microsoft or Sun Solaris solutions.

Been there done that.

> we did a project using FreeBSD and Samba to replace a number of highly
> unstable NT file/print servers.

Again, been there, done that.

> recently, some consultants (friends of the managing partners) said that
> it was a bad idea to use "Public Domain software that was full of bugs
> and highly insecure".

Pure FUD, of course.

> when we pointed out that the servers hadn't rebooted in 160 days, and
> that they were protected by both RFC1918 addressing and a firewall, the
> consultants backed off a bit.

Most consultants (not me :-) are idiots.

> then they returned spouting the same "full of bugs and highly insecure" crap.

They are uninformed, or worse, believe what Microsoft says.

> now management is going to have them re-implement the network using the
> latest NT stuff.

Fight it! Is there any evidence that will help you?

> this is a long winded way of saying that my feeling is the type of MBA
> CFO/CIO that is impressed by a mission statement, is probably not going
> to buy into technology that isn't listed on NASDAQ.

That is where the fight lies!! We have to make believers out of them! We have
superior technology, we have superior quality.

Microsoft and Oracle have billions of dollars in marketing, all we have is
ourselves.
>
> so, what's the harm in having one?
>
> probably not much, but to me it smells of corporate bullshit.

Corporate bullshit or not, it is a fact of life and a custom that we open
source people need to accept. We write the best shit, we do the best work. We
are "more professional" and dedicated than most professionals. Our quality is
usually much better than proprietary our counterparts. Unfortunately business
types do not understand us. If we are unable to reach the people who would
decide to use our stuff, then it is our fault for failure.

Le Vendredi 3 Mai 2002 04:46, mlw a écrit :
> Corporate bullshit or not, it is a fact of life and a custom that we open
> source people need to accept. We write the best shit, we do the best work.
> We are "more professional" and dedicated than most professionals. Our
> quality is usually much better than proprietary our counterparts.
> Unfortunately business types do not understand us. If we are unable to
> reach the people who would decide to use our stuff, then it is our fault
> for failure.

Therefore we need a moto.

Le Vendredi 3 Mai 2002 02:22, Thomas Lockhart a écrit :
> "PostgreSQL is and will be the most advanced open-source database
> available anywhere."

*******************************************************************************************
The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining the best,
most reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards based database, and with
it, promote free and open source software world wide.

Ultimately, PostgreSQL database is a gift to Humanity serving freedom,
knowledge and equal access to information, and as such belongs to every
Human.
*******************************************************************************************

PostgreSQL is "transcendantal", which means it goes "beyond" the original
concept of its creators. People began working on it for various reasons (for
professional needs, because of open-source code, to have fun) ... and
ultimately it becomes a gift to Humanity.

My feeling is that the PostgreSQL community is making history without even
noticing it. You are all heroes my friends...

Cheers,
Jean-Michel POURE

On Thu, 2 May 2002, Scott Marlowe wrote:

> On 2 May 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > The Politically Correct mission statement follows:
> >
> > The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining a good
> > but not the best, mostly reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards
> > based database, and with it, promote free and open source software and
> > other worthy causes world wide and to not hurting anyones feelings in doing so.
> > We are also committed to not cheating our SOs, not charging too much for
> > our services nor eating too much and to recommending products of our
> > commercial competitors before ours in order to help them fullfil their
> > obligations to their stockholders.
>
> As a practicing polyamorist, I find the part about not cheating on our SOs
> highly offensive. :-)

"not cheating our SOs", !"not cheating on our SOs" ... you add an 'on'
there that wasn't actually there :)

Mark kirkwood <markir(at)slingshot(dot)co(dot)nz> writes:

> On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 04:25, mlw wrote:
>
> >
> > IMHO, if we can come up with a strong, positive statement, it
> > would help MBA trained CIOs and CTOs choose PostgreSQL. To them,
> > it will show a professional minded development group, it will be
> > recognizable to them.
>
> I am not so sure about that -
>
> In my experience the things that those guys use to decide on
> products are :
>
> 1) reference sites
> 2) official support
>
> (and they like to pay for a product 'cause they are used to doing
> it...but lets not go there...)
>
> Personally I find the lack of "business-speak" things (like mission
> statements) refeshing, and I see it as part of the "values" that
> differentiate open source / community based products from commercial
> ones.
>
> just my NZ4c (=US2c)
>
> Mark

As a developer and systems administrator my favorite thing about
PostgreSQL is the fact that I can get the straight dope on what works
and what doesn't. The PostgreSQL developers are quite candid, and are
more than willing to tell you which bits of PostgreSQL are dicey.
That's a huge bonus to someone creating and maintaining an
application.

However, it's not exactly the sort of salesmanship that my boss is
looking for.

Jason

On Thu, 2 May 2002, Jim Mercer wrote:

> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:41:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > A mission statement is like a tie.
>
> straw vote!
>
> who on the list wears ties?

Does a skinny black tie count if I'm only wearing it to go out to a jazz
club? :-) Not at work though. I think ties are designed to slow the flow
of blood to the head so you'll think slow enough for marketeers to
understand you.

Jim Mercer wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:45:45PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > Jim Mercer wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:14:03PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > > Jim Mercer wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:41:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > > > > A mission statement is like a tie.
> > > > > who on the list wears ties?
> > > > How many people who make IT decisions wear ties?
> > > too many.
> > I'm sorry I started this thread.
> when i hear "mission statement" and "quality circle" and "internal customer",
> i cringe.
> if the corporate management doesn't want to buy into the Open Source concept,
> fuck 'em.

<trench warfare snippage>

Let's see... open source philosophy applied *into* corporate-speak should
be doable....
1. If you have an itch, scratch it.
2. If you want to know what's going on, use the source, luke!
3. More eyeballs = less bugs.
4. Software should be free (insert debates on speech, beer, use, licence
XYZ vs. ABC, etc., I'm not going to bother).

Hm...firing up my geekspeak->corporate BS translator. :-)

How about:
"PostgreSQL creates a dynamic environment to ensure that all customers
can effectly create highly customized solutions specific to their needs. We
share and collaborate on both problems and solutions by making all
information about our products available. By using this open and exciting
environment, we increase the amount of successful software releases
using advanced concepts of peer review and peer enhancement. We ensure our
ongoing enhancement and improvement through our community, because
our customers are also our creators."

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go wash my mouth out with soap.

-Ronabop

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 01:14:34PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On 2 May 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
...
> > BTW, I think PostgreSQL does _not_ need any mission statement.
>
> Nope, it doesn't ... never did before, don't know why it does suddenly ...
> do any other open source projects have one? Its kinda fun to see what ppl
> banter around, but I can't see it being useful to adopt any single one,
> considering I can't see *everyone* agreeing with it ...

Quick - get out the Dilbert!

Patick