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

Re: Release Candidate of the PostgreSQL Europe association statutes

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
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: 2008-01-13 21:17:08
Message-ID: 478A7FD4.4090007@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgeu-general
Dave Page wrote:
> Hi Damien
> 
> On 13/01/2008, damien clochard <damien(at)dalibo(dot)info> wrote:
>> hi everyone !
>>
>> Proof-Reading
>> ===========
>>
>> After a few weeks of work, the statutes for the upcoming European user group
>> are ready to be submitted to you.
> 
> Thank you for working on this.
> 
>> * The association is composed of : active members (who pay the regular
>> membership fee ) , benefactor members ( who pay a more expensive annual
>> contribution )
> 
> I am *completely* opposed to this.
> 
> 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.

So PostgreSQL EU is supposed to be like SPI except for a EU focus? 
Interesting.

> 
> As you know, PostgreSQL is an Open Source project, comprised primarily
> of people who work voluntarily. Yes, some of those (myself included)
> are lucky enough to be employed to work on PostgreSQL these days, but
> even so I think the vast majority of us still contribute over and
> above what we're paid to do.
> 
> 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.

It is how PostgreSQLFR does it now as I recall.

> 
> The world-wide organisation providing the same services as the
> European Group has no need to charge membership fees (nor does it have
> any formal concept of membership for that matter)]

Well just to be clear, SPI (which per our jabber conversation is who you 
are talking about) does have a formal membership concept. Not "anyone" 
can join. Although SPI does not charge for membership.

http://www.spi-inc.org/about-spi/membership

> - and yet it's bank
> account is quite healthy thanks to the donations solicited from
> grateful users and corporate sponsorship, and it regularly sponsors
> speakers at events and purchases swag for shows (in fact, is probably
> going to buy pins for us to take to FOSDEM).

This is kind of a tangent here but I would note that the money that we 
have in that account, for the most part is "solicited" in one form or 
another. The community puts forth a great deal of effort to receive 
those donations.

If the EU non-profit wants to be successful on that tier, there is going 
to be some hard work to be done.

> 
> What justification is there for the European group to charge a
> membership fee when it's clearly not necessary for the stated purpose
> of the group?

Many professional trade organizations require membership fees. I for the 
most part don't have a problem with it. Although I was surprised that I 
was asked for money to join PostgreSQLFR.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> 
> Regards, Dave
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
> 


In response to

Responses

pgeu-general by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2008-01-13 21:29:00
Subject: Re: Release Candidate of the PostgreSQL Europe association statutes
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2008-01-13 20:59:38
Subject: Re: Election for board of directors

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