| From: | Michael Dean <mdean(at)sourceview(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, Michael Dean <michael(dot)dean(at)speakeasy(dot)net>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: On what we want to support: travel? |
| Date: | 2006-10-30 15:50:41 |
| Message-ID: | 45461F51.2030601@sourceview.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-www |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:31:02PM -0700, Michael Dean wrote:
>>
>>> However, lacking a concrete organization where lines of authority are
>>> clearly understood and established, this is easier said than done!
>>>
>> Presumably, we don't have that problem here. A proposal could come
>> to the funds group liason, and the laison would decide whether to
>> fund it or not. I'd expect an arrangement of percentages of agreed
>> funding for milestones reached.
>>
Ad hoc decisions by an appointed committee that is reactive to
indiosyncratic proposals seems somewhat unethical. Perhaps I am wrong,
but wouldn't it be better if there were a document clearly specifying
spending priorities that was relatively accepted by consensus of a broad
group of pg'ers, and that an opportunity to qualify for these monies
could be promulgated to the broader group?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Ellsworth | 2006-10-30 16:17:20 | $ Contribution vs $ Matching Pledge |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-10-30 15:49:58 | Re: On what we want to support: travel? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-10-30 16:31:16 | Re: On what we want to support: travel? |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-10-30 15:49:58 | Re: On what we want to support: travel? |