-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 08:06:53AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:00:55 +0100
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> > > 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
> > completely)
> One reason would be the make it very clear exactly what the expectation
> of a Companies influence within the organization will be. If you leave
> it arbitrary, is essentially can be voted differently by the board at
> any time.
I don't think so. I don't think the board should even have these powers. The board
is there to execute the members instructions, no? I would very much be against
an organisation where the board can just do as it sees fit with statutory changes
So therefore, leaving out that the companies have power effectively defines that
the companies have no power over the organisation whatsoever.
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: Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum||Date: 2008-01-22 10:50:00|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Europe board candidates|
|Previous:||From: Koen Martens||Date: 2008-01-22 10:39:15|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap|