Andrew,

> I believe that Chris's outline was an attempt to define the
> infrastructure requirements.  Perhaps they're inadequate (re-reading
> them, I suspect some refinement might be a good idea).  But it seems
> to me that what we need to do is nail down -- whether for Slony or
> for the PostgreSQL project more generally, if people like -- what
> sort of service we would _like_, and how we are willing to compromise and
> on which items.  Once we have that, we can proceed with the decision
> around whether pgFoundry meets the needs of the project.  Does that
> seem fair?

What I'm pointing out is that that's the wrong way to think about it.   100% 
of deficiencies with pgFoundry are curable by an application of sysadmin 
time. If the Slony-I team is going to look at putting in a bunch of sysadmin 
time to provide a better-than-pgFoundry platform, then doing it *only* for 
Slony is more-or-less an announcement of separation from www.postgresql.org.  
As in, "Slony deserves better but we don't care about the rest of 
PostgreSQL."

FWIW, regarding the proprietary fork of GForge, GForge Inc. would be more than 
happy to provide us a free perpetual license including migration support.  If 
using non-OSS isn't intolerable to people, I'm happy to see if the new 
version cures enough of the ills which have made Gforge-GPL so 
high-maintenance.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco