That’s a great suggestion!

I still think some strategery will ultimately be involved. But, to run with what you’ve put together, here are my thoughts:

* When bringing non-US citizens in, there are lots of bizarre issues. If you have an LLC, managing all those details is a problem that would need to be solved.

* Joining an LLC as a contractor can be seen as working for a competitor for a lot of companies and consultancies. I wish that there was another “type of thing” that was not seen as competitive, but additive to an employee’s participation in their company. I’m not sure if I am explaining what I mean properly, but this problem of competition would need to be addressed.

Am I correct in assuming that the primary goal is to allow folks to contribute code or provide support { with compensation | with protection } and still keep their day jobs? The easiest way to do this is to have everyone sign on as a contractor. This is how many of us do small projects today. There are still questions to be answered, of course, but I would surmise it’s less work than trying to come up with a new structure.

Cheers,
-Josh

I was trying to think up a way for contributors spread around the world to be part of a loosely affiliated organization, and still keep their day jobs (if they have them).

The whole notion of corporate accountability is difficult to reconcile with the way that the Postgres project itself is developed. Of course, there are plenty of very good companies that provide support. And I trust the Postgres community – the question of how we scale that trust out to the larger world is what I am interested in.

Typically, this is done by having a huge corporation. Maybe there is another way?

The cooperative seems like a good deal – but I have the same question as you: what is in it for the contributors that is a benefit above and beyond what they get from their current, no-liability contribution status? Why join an organization that suddenly saddles you with responsibility that you didn’t otherwise want?

You’d probably have to have an economic incentive, or a very strong reputation incentive.

In the end, I don’t have a good answer yet, and your question is really important.

If I can add to what David notes about FUD… I think we need to define a ‘target’ – the kind of company, or even the particular company – that would benefit from PostgreSQL. From there it’s possible to determine the best method of approach.

If you are targeting Fortune 500, I think it’s highly improbable that any entity other than a company providing commercial support and SLA’s could get a slice of the mission-critical pie. It’s simply the perception. While larger companies (IBM, Microsoft, Oracle) offer hit-and-miss support – often more miss than hit – they can command high support contract fees (and disclaim all liability) just because they are IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle.

A cooperative as in legal structure (where all workers own a slice of a corporation) may work… but then what’s the difference between that and a standard employee owned corporation? In either case, from the ‘outside’ it still has to appear as a normal company for the perception to fit.

I am having trouble seeing the need for a cooperative or NGO type structure. If I provide support on a mailing list as an individual, my support comes with an implicit lack of liability. (On second thought, maybe I had better follow up all my list postings with liability waivers!) If I want to provide support where I am bonded against IP, SLA, and Legal requirements, then I go work for a corporation or LLC, or form one myself. What benefits would an alternate structure provide, that are not provided by these types of structures?

Cheers,
-JK

http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=postgres%2C+postgresql%2C+postgre%2C+pgsql&l=

I agree that someone has to take responsibility, and that it can’t really be the RDBMS provider, as RDBMSs by their nature are far too flexible to be able to guarantee such stuff “out of the box.” I strongly suspect that an “out of the box” system that both functions and meets (PCI-DSS|HIPAA|SOX) requirements is just plain impossible on Halting Problem grounds.

Those insurance bills you pay are appropriate because they’re protecting you, the people who actually put together the system, from the consequences–quite severe–of failure.

Oracle’s disclaimer and muscly legal teams, on the other hand, are totally inappropriate. You would be insane to get within 50 yards of a car that came with a disclaimer like the EULAs proprietary software comes with, let alone actually get in it.

The situation is not one that proprietary software has actually solved. It’s
one where they’ve managed to externalize a gigantic cost, but that’s all.

http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=postgres%2C+mysql%2C+oracle