Community,
Join the fantastic and growing Postgres community in Cape Town, South Africa for a single day event on October 3rd, 2017! The event is being hosted by fellow Postgres advocates who travel from South Africa each year to attend our National Event in order to increase their knowledge of Postgres and be a part of the community. This year they are joining us and making a commitment to build out our International community and conferences!
With more than 200 events submitted and approximately 80 slots to be filled, this has been the most difficult schedule to arrange in the history of PostgresConf. By far, the majority of content received we wanted to include in the schedule. It is that level of community support that we work so hard to achieve and we are thankful to the community for supporting PostgresConf. There is no doubt that the number one hurdle the community must overcome is effective access to education on Postgres. The US 2018 event achieves this with two full days of training and three full days of breakout sessions, including the Regulated Industry Summit and Greenplum Summit.
We are pleased to announce that Early Bird tickets to Postgres Conference 2019 are now available. Whether you are seeking a world class big data and analytics learning opportunity from the Greenplum Summit, a deep dive from the Google Cloud Summit, Regulated Industry Information from the Regulated Industry track, or a dizzying amount of learning opportunities from over 100 breakout sessions, PostgresConf 2019 is the show not to miss! Oh, and did we mention there will be training options as well?
On occasion, professional developers will drop into the Postgresql.org mailing lists, meetups, and conferences to ask the question, “Why isn’t PostgreSQL development on Github?” In an effort to see if the demand was really there and not just anecdotal we ran a poll/survey over several social media platforms that asked a simple question:
Should PostgreSQL development move to Github?
We received well over 300 responses and the majority (75%+) chose a move to Github or to something like Github. This was an unscientific poll but it does point out a few interesting topics for consideration:
This poll does not answer point #3; it only provides a data point that people may desire a modern collaboration platform. The key takeaway from the conversation about migrating to Github or similar service is the future generation of developers use technology such as Slack and Microsoft Teams. They expect a bug/issue tracker. They demand simplicity in collaboration and most importantly they will run a cost->benefit analysis to determine if the effort to contribute is a net positive.
It should also be considered that this is not just individual potential contributors. There are many corporations big and small that rely on the success of PostgreSQL. Those corporations will not contribute as much directly to PostgreSQL if the cost to benefit analysis is a net negative. They will instead contribute through other more productive means that produce a net positive when the cost->benefit analysis is run. A good example of this analysis is the proliferation of external projects such as pg_auto_failover, patroni and lack of direct contribution from innovative extension based companies.
There are those within the Postgresql.org community that would suggest that we do not need a culture shift within PostgreSQL but that does not take into account the very clear market dynamics that are driving the growth of PostgreSQL, Postgres, and the global ecosystem. It is true that 20 years of hard work by Postgresql.org started the growth and it is also true that the majority of growth in the ecosystem and community is from products such as Greenplum, Aurora, Azure, and Timescale. The growth in the ecosystem is from the professional community and that ecosystem will always perform a cost to benefit analysis before contributing.
It is not that we should create radical rifts or disrupt our culture. It is to say that we must evolve and shift our community thinking. We need to be able to consider the big picture. A discussion should never start as an opposition to change. The idea of change should be an open discussion about possibility and vision. It should always include whether the change is a good idea and it should always avoid visceral reactions of, "works for me,” “no,” or “we tried that 15 years ago." Those reactions are immature and lacking in the very thing the community needs to continue to grow: positivity, inclusion, vision, and inspiration.
As one of the Founders of United States PostgreSQL, a former Director of Software in the Public Interest (one of the NPOs behind Postgresql.org), a former committer (web), former major contributor, President of the oldest PostgreSQL company still independent in North America, and the Founder of Postgres Conference (in the U.S.), I thought I would offer a knowledgeable perspective.
I have had long discussions with one of the primary people within the Fundacion PostgreSQL (Alvaro) and his heart is in the best interest of the community, even if Postgresql.org, PGEU and PGCAC do not agree. You can see this demonstrated within Fundacion’s trademark policy. That said, Fundacion PostgreSQL did go about their actions in an incorrect way. There should have been an open discussion and they should have provided PGCAC the opportunity to resolve the trademark issues on their own. It is also true that while I believe PGEU and PGCAC believe they are protecting the community, if they were interested in positive community growth and collaboration, they would not be taking the approach they currently are. The current path has far reaching implications that PGEU and PGCAC do not see.
Further, the PostgreSQL Community Association of Canada and Fundacion PostgreSQL have resorted to terrible language in representing what is actually going on within the disagreement. Using language such as, “An attack on our community” or “PostgreSQL attacks the community” is immature at best and at worst an intentional decision to use good faith and mindshare against what is largely just a disagreement that could be solved with an active mediator and a few phone calls. If this disagreement is about the best interest of the PostgreSQL community, shouldn’t that involve discourse, honesty, transparency, and kind communication?
(1) Internet consulting.
(2) Internet presence provider- DNS hosting.
(3) Commercial internet support for database applications development and implementation including the ability to host internet domains (as an internet service provider) and provide a wide range of web site development, programming and information technology services, namely computer software architecture, design and/or development services.
(4) Computer hardware sales and service.
The solution to the whole problem is simple; a single contract that states:
The contract should not contain language in regards to future potential filings that involve but are not exclusive to the word Postgres or PostgreSQL. There are already a number of filings worldwide that use Postgres or PostgreSQL as part of an overall mark inclusively such as Postgres Pro, Postgres Plus, Postgres Always On and Postgres Enterprise Manager, all of which are not owned but PGCAC or PGEU.
Because it is the right thing to do. Otherwise this whole affair is going to end up costing one entity or another way too much money for no purpose. There is no clear distinction on who would legally win, and in either situation the main sufferers are the PostgreSQL community. Let’s have the parties show an act of kindness for the betterment of everyone involved.