On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 03:19:04PM -0400, Gavin M. Roy wrote:
> With the only caveat that the Anniversary Summit was official?
The AS was, in fact, operated as an official outlet of the
then-nascent fundraising group; but there wasn't (and isn't, AFAICT)
a panel of people to "stamp" any conference as official. That's why
the PGDG is such a nice thing: there's nobody in control of it,
because it's not incorporated.
This _exact_ strength was invoked when Dan was setting up his
conference in Ottawa the following year: the fundraising group didn't
want to do a second round, and everyone argued at the time that, in
the absence of PostgreSQL police, Dan's conference (which was, I'll
point out, well organised and run and generally fine from my point of
view) was a perfectly legitimate operation. I support that approach.
The project has benefited historically from a high tolerance of
community members getting involved and doing things, and this is just
an obvious extension. I don't think we need to get all
PostgreSQL-certified on people. Who would do the certification?
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-08-30 19:37:56|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL.Org (was: PostgreSQL Conference Fal
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-08-30 19:21:38|
|Subject: Re: Upcoming PostgreSQL conferences (next 12 months)|