Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Release Candidate of the PostgreSQL Europe association statutes

From: Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <ads(at)pgug(dot)de>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: damien(at)dalibo(dot)info, pgeu-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Release Candidate of the PostgreSQL Europe association statutes
Date: 2008-01-14 00:01:09
Message-ID: 20080114000109.GZ31998@base.wars-nicht.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgeu-general
Hello,

On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:55:43PM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> 
> On 13/01/2008, damien clochard <damien(at)dalibo(dot)info> wrote:
> > hi everyone !
> >
> > Proof-Reading
> > ===========

you all know, what "proof-reading" means, or? The current version is not 
written in stone. But:

I looked up in my pgug folder, damien's announcement mail with the link 
to the statues was sent at 200-11-06. That's more than two months ago!
And nobody replied, no one!

So we worked this out on IRC, simplified the original version (the 
french original is much longer and complicated), changed a lot of 
details to meet european requirements and today we sent this version 
around. Normally only some minor changes should be reqired. But now we 
find out that we have contrary positions on some vital details.

This could be solved weeks ago :-(


> We agreed in Prato that the aim was to create an organisation to help
> promote PostgreSQL in Europe, by providing support and resources to
> regional groups (for example,economies of scale when purchasing swag),
> as well as undertaking our own promotional work.

Yes, "providing support", "providing help to local groups", "promote PG" 
ect. I can't remember words about blocking membership if you are already 
in another PG organization or about rivalry between local and european 
group.


> Why in that case, are we saying that people who wish to contribute and
> be part of the European Group will have to *pay* for the privilege of
> doing so? That is the most anti-Open Source way of running part of the
> project I can possibly imagine, and seems like an exceptionally
> efficient way to minimise the number of people that decide to help
> out.

Ok, a membership fee for people is maybe not a very good idea. But a 
fee for organizations or companies is widely known. So maybe we should 
change parts of the statues here. If we don't have a membership fee for 
persons, we avoid all the following problems like having organizations 
pay for their members to the eu group.

But personally: i would like to be member in both groups, my local group
(if there would be any) and the european group. Why not?


Kind regards

-- 
				Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group

In response to

Responses

pgeu-general by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2008-01-14 00:06:24
Subject: Re: Release Candidate of the PostgreSQL Europe association statutes
Previous:From: damien clochardDate: 2008-01-13 23:47:27
Subject: Re: Release Candidate of the PostgreSQL Europe association statutes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group