On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:42 PM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) <farjad.farid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Five days (and I don't know how many posts) ago, there was this: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160106184818.GT21041@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Which said in part: > The other thing I note is that the IETF got > most of these documents because someone thought the problem was > important enough to write a draft proposal first. As I said in a > recent IETF plenary, the organization works partly because at the IETF > you don't need anyone's permission to try something; you don't even > need forgiveness. The worst that can happen is that people reject the > proposal. It always seemed to me that the Postgres project worked in > a similar way, so I'd encourage those who think there is a problem to > be solved to make a scratch proposal and see whether it flies. It's > always easier to discuss a concrete proposal than to try to figure out > whether something is a good idea in the abstract. I'm going to give this a belated +1, and ignore any further posts on this thread. If someone wants to take the step of posting a concrete proposal, please start a new thread with a different subject line. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
