Josh, > On the other hand, we do suffer from the locked project problem (the > recent recursive query debacle is a perfect example). Yep, and that was immediately recognized as a problem in need of a solution. In fact, some of the arguments againts the issue/feature tracker were that it would encourage the locked project issue. So the NetBSD experience should inform our design of the future feature/bug tracker: it should be used to encourage new developers (by providing clear specs and status information) rather than locking in old ones. > We do have portions of a meritocracy in place but we are by no means > mature in that arena. Likely because of our lock problem ;) What specific issues do you see? We're pretty strongly merit-based -- the only reservation I see on that is a bias toward more eloquent writers having disproprotionate influence. But I don't see any way to avoid that. > Another odd issue, which may or may not be a positive is that we don't > have a public leader. We have half a dozen people (less I think) that > are very, very public (I am not talking mailing list public). Actually, this issue is a complete red herring. People like to point to Linux as successful because of Linus's benevolent dictatorship, but Linus is the exception rather than the rule. Most of the very successful projects (Apache, Perl, MySQL, Debian, X.org, etc.) are led by councils or companies without a dictator. I can name more than a few projects where the "charismatic leader" was the main thing preventing the project's success. In general, I think that people who harp on PostgreSQL's lack of a benevolent dictator as an inhibitor to progress are people who are not comfortable with democracy and are looking for excuses why company X needs to "take over the project for its own good." -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
