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

Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap

From: Koen Martens <gmc(at)sonologic(dot)nl>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: damien clochard <damien(at)dalibo(dot)info>, pgeu-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap
Date: 2008-01-22 10:16:37
Message-ID: 20080122101530.GA13848@latitude (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgeu-general
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 01:52:54PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 05:53:56AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> > hello !
> > 
> > As you have notice, messages about the statutes for the upcoming association 
> > have suddenly stopped a few days ago. My guess is that's not because of lack 
> > of interest. i feel that this whole thread was very difficult to follow, so i 
> > took the 60 e-mails and tried to write a sum-up.
> 
> Thanks!

Yes, excellent work!

> > check-it out : http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes_discuss
> > 
> > i tried to respect everyone's thoughts (using quotes as mush as possible) in 
> > order to give a proper view of the issues we have to solve. however i may 
> > have made mistakes or forgot some ideas. If you notice any of that the best 
> > thing to do is to directly edit the wiki page. If you can't, please send me 
> > your modifications in a private e-mail.
> 
> I think using the list for discussion is what most of us are used to, so
> let's do that...

I'm quite comfortable with wiki's, but mailing list is fine for me too.

> > i have identified 5 issues and several possible solutions for every issue : 
> > 
> > 1- Membership fee ?
> >       a : Keep the statutes as they are
> >       b : No membership fee for people
> >       c : Optional membership fee for people
> 
> Does this need to be in the statues at all? If we can keep it out of the
> statues, that'll make it a lot easier to change it if need be.

There will have to be some definition of 'member' in the statutes. Else a statement such as 'at least 2/3 of the members must be in favour' or phrases like that are meaningless within the statutes.. 

> > 2- Membership ?
> >      a : Keep the statutes as they are
> >      b : Automatic membership for users of local groups
> >      c : Optional membership for users of local groups
> 
> This I think needs to be in the statues.

And in close discussion with those local groups!

> The way I see it, getting the stuff that needs to be in the statues done
> quickly is the most important part. The less we can "lock up" in the
> statues, the easier it will be for us to adapt to what the member wants
> over time.

The definition of what constitutes a member is a very important one to be in the statutes.

Gr,

Koen

- -- 
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlcJCktDgRrkFPpYRAqVWAJ4yS7TFghU5WapLeRDNRLGvumgfxQCgiWoX
mcCKKLADzU5n5qbHgaMpa+M=
=WCT7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In response to

pgeu-general by date

Next:From: Koen MartensDate: 2008-01-22 10:36:48
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-01-21 19:40:35
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap

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