On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 19:38 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 10:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > All,
> Mostly we already do this, so when people do official things they use a
> neutral email address, for example Josh's recent announcement was made
> from PGDG rather than Sun.
> If we let that slip, then IMHO it will be a bad thing for the future of
> the project, in its current form.
O.k. this makes sense. So the action that caused this feedback was:
"The" PostgreSQL.org Developer meeting was sponsored by EnterpriseDB.
And you feel that since it was a literal PostgreSQL.Org developer
meeting versus some adhoc get together that it should not be considered
sponsored by anyone except PostgreSQL.Org?
I can actually get behind this idea because. It falls into line with the
same thing we are doing with booths now. If you want to staff a booth,
you wear a PostgreSQL shirt. If you want to present materials at a
PostgreSQL booth, it goes into the PostgreSQL folder. It is not allowed
out on the tables, except in that folder etc...
Of course the question is: Was that meeting an actual PostgreSQL.Org
sanctioned meeting, or was it just Dave at the behest and support of his
employer organizing a bunch of developers for a meeting. Those are two
very different things.
Consider that PGCON is a commercial conference. I think it would have
really been up to Dan to determine whether or not that sponsorship was
appropriate, not PostgreSQL.Org. IDG does this for LinuxWorld for
example. Sure, they gave us a room so we could have a PGDay but they
have explicitly dictated how things like sponsorships are going to work.
It isn't up to us.
Joshua D. Drake
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2008-06-13 19:09:46|
|Subject: Re: Anonymous contributions WAS: PostgreSQL derivatives|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2008-06-13 18:38:39|
|Subject: Re: Anonymous contributions WAS: PostgreSQLderivatives|