-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 05:00:55PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I'd argue that we don't need to write that in the statues... We can leave
> that up to the board to decide.
And I would argue very much against that! It needs to be in the statutes. You can not
have open-ended definitions of what a member is!
> > > 5- Companies : sponsors or members ?
> > > > a : Keep the statutes as they are
> > > > b : Companies are sponsors
> > >
> > > If #1 can be kept outside the statues, so can this one.
> > I believe this cannot be left out. I am for 'b'. Companies are not members.
> > Only individuals are members.
> Why shouldn't it be possible to leave it out?
> (And for the record, I'm for 'b' as well, but i'd rather keep it out
I think in my previous email I +1'ed wrongly. What I +1'ed to was, that only individuals can be members. And that is all that has to be in the statutes. Sponsorship is not a statutory thing, unless you want to assign democratic power to the sponsors which we don't iirc.
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)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In response to
pgeu-general by date
|Next:||From: Koen Martens||Date: 2008-01-22 10:47:13|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap|
|Previous:||From: Gevik Babakhani||Date: 2008-01-22 10:38:00|
|Subject: PostgreSQL Europe board candidates|