Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap

Hi all,

>> As I mentioned before - maybe we can simply reduce company influence
>> to an absolute minimum.
>> I am also part of a PostgreSQL consulting company and I truly
>> believe that our strongest argument for PostgreSQL is that PostgreSQL
>> is not controlled by one single company.
>> This gives customers a good choice and it gives security.

I understand your point of view. But don't think that PostgreSQL project
can be ownable, it is not. Just the same as the product himself.

More over, we're talking about an organization advocaying PostgreSQL,
not the project/product himself.

Finaly, you can't buy a non-profit.

To me, having companies being members of Open-Source or Free Software
*non profit* organization don't give them any chance of something weird.

Thats why statutes are there. They define everything there...

As I said on another thread, having companies inside the non-profit
association gives it more power and visibility. Its a kind of endorsment.

> I thought I would provide a reference:
> http://people.planetpostgresql.org/greg/index.php?/archives/120-Postgres-is-not-for-sale.html

Fr version I did translate today, some hours ago:

http://www.postgresqlfr.org/?q=node/1529

Excellent article :)

> *If* companies are members, members can effective "buy" PostgreSQL by
> exerting influence over the various non profits and thus the resources
> that PostgreSQL has.

No. Companies are members just to say the world:

« Hey, Im a corporate, I think PostgreSQL rulez, so I give them money
and my name too. They can tell the world I use PostgreSQL. And Im a
member of it, lets say I help them daily, or sometimes. With money, with
the time my employees give to the project (or the product, to follow
Greg's article) or with servers I give the project....»

We can write down in the statutes that every member, legal, corporate or
even sigle-person can be *fired* from the organization in anything we
dont like: just write that in statutes, don't you think ?

Its our statues, lets write things like we do want.

> This is type of situation I am suggesting is not a
> good one to get into.

The main point to me is the difference between Sponsorship and Activitism.

As I said already, be a member of something is a far stronger thing than
simply giving money, time or hardware. Its a political act.

Thinking in advance that company may/will be member only to take an
advantage on something is saying to companies, and CEO/CTO/whatever,
that they're eveil and that we are all white holy horses compared to them.

Dalibo(my company) and PostgreSQLFr (non-profit) are both members of
APRIL, an FSF-like organization in France. Our voice counts no more, no
less, than a voice. So every single person has the same weight of us,
but, as you'll see on this page:

http://adherents.april.org/personnes-morales.php

.. such a listing gives something strong to April: they represent not
only persons, but also non-profit, profit and gouvernement organizations.

This is not the same to me...

Cheers,

--
Jean-Paul Argudo
www.PostgreSQLFr.org