Re: Time to scale up?

["Gavin M. Roy" <gmr(at)ehpg(dot)net>]

You mean like PgFoundry?

On Jul 24, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Derek M. Rodner wrote:

> Newbie alert....
>
> What if we tried to merge ALL of the different Postgres auxiliary  
> projects into a forge site like sugarforge.org?
>
> For those of us that are "new", it seems illogical for projects to  
> be scattered all over the place...  I am not implying that they  
> should be part of the physical Postgres package, but co-location of  
> all of these tools makes them more accessible and gives "one-stop  
> shopping" for those who are Postgres users....
>
> If we could get the resources to create a repository like  
> SugarForge it would also have many indirect benefits:
> 1.  A single repository for everyone to go consolidates many varied  
> projects and might reduce redundancy
> 2.  Let's outsiders see just how big the Postgres community really is
> 3.  Might entice others to get involved
> 4.  Raises the Postgres profile in the market
> 5.  Gives a more "professional" face to Postgres which it needs to  
> jump to the next level
>
> Now, I understand the efforts involved in this, but I wanted to at  
> least plant the seed.
>
> Derek
>
>
> Derek M. Rodner
> Director, Marketing
> EnterpriseDB Corporation
> 33 Wood Avenue, Second Floor
> Iselin, NJ  08830
> 732.331.1333
>
>
>
>
> Jussi Mikkola wrote:
> > I think there are some very good points in this, and in this  
> > thread in general. Atleast worth a few thoughts.
> >
> > First about the different domains. Yes, it is very much like  
> > different brands. And what is good or bad in it? Well, those  
> > projects that are not under the PostgreSQL umbrella, are not that  
> > official, and not consider part of the "package". But, on the  
> > other hand, it could be beneficial for the main project, if the  
> > "package" would contain things like PgAdmin, Slony etc. I believe,  
> > that it would make the total package more "valuable" in business  
> > terms.
> >
> > But, if those parts would be in the same package, then that would  
> > mean more responsibility for the core. Someone would need to say  
> > that this is beta, and this is ready. But that would be important  
> > for the users, so it could be worth it. How it would be done, that  
> > would require some talks between all those projects. But I can  
> > see, that the current core could focus on the database itself, and  
> > then there could be another organ that would look at all the  
> > joining parts.
> >
> > When those projects are clearly separate, it also means that there  
> > are a lot of brands. And if we want to promote all these projects,  
> > it will require additional effort. So, instead of making one  
> > strong brand, we kind of try to make one brand, and then we try to  
> > promote also many other brands that are necessary for the one  
> > brand. No focus.
> >
> > From the advocacy perspective I see joining projects under a  
> > common umbrella as a very good idea. Of course, those other  
> > projects should also see it beneficial, and it would probably  
> > require a lot of work to make these projects more connected. But I  
> > am quite sure, that it would at least make the advocacy part a lot  
> > easier. There would be more to talk about, and the links would not  
> > be pointed out to third party websites.
> >
> > Rgs,
> >
> > Jussi
> >
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > > > Well that is a very good point, because I have always  
> > > > > considered planetpostgresql not a part of the PostgreSQL  
> > > > > project. I hadn't even considered that it is a postgresql  
> > > > > project until just now.
> > > >
> > > > Just curious, but why does it have to be *.postgresql.org to be  
> > > > considered official?  Isn't official what we make it ... ?
> > >
> > > Absolutely not (unfortunately). Official is what people  
> > > "perceive" is official.
> > >
> > > For a case and point, go to http://www.ximian.com or http:// 
> > > www.suse.com . You will note that they no longer exist and have  
> > > been absorbed into Novell.com.
> > >
> > > The reason for this is to show an official integration, so that  
> > > people are comfortable with the respective brands because they  
> > > are comfortable with Novell.
> > >
> > > The same applies for our sub projects, until they are recognized  
> > > under the official project domain name. They will always be  
> > > considered third party.
> > >
> > > > The thing is, everyone spends their time putting pgFoundry down  
> > > > as being 'second class' ... of course everyone else is going to  
> > > > consider it such also ... it isn't second class, nor was it ever  
> > > > meant to be ... if ppl promoted, pushed and advertised it more,  
> > > > it would be as 'second class' as common to go to as CPAN is for  
> > > > Perl ...
> > >
> > > Perhaps the fact that everyone is putting down pgFoundry as  
> > > second class is telling to the point that we need to promote it's  
> > > perception? E.g; get it under projects.postgresql.org where it  
> > > really belongs.
> > >
> > > And as Alvaro mentioned, the same should go for  
> > > planet.postgresql.org .
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Joshua D. Drake
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of  
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of  
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster