Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap

Hello all,

On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 05:53:56AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
>
> i have identified 5 issues and several possible solutions for every issue :
>
> 1- Membership fee ?
> a : Keep the statutes as they are
> b : No membership fee for people
> c : Optional membership fee for people

As pointed out (by me) earlier: we should avoid requiring a fee for the
membership but instead we should try to help local users and groups with
our money which we can get from sponsorship or merchandising.

In this case we can circumvent the whole "membership fee" topic.

> 2- Membership ?
> a : Keep the statutes as they are
> b : Automatic membership for users of local groups
> c : Optional membership for users of local groups

I apply for free choice but i also see the requirement for pushing local
groups. So in this case b) or c) is fine for me.

> 3- Quorum ?
> a : Keep the statutes as they are
> b : Lower the quorum
> c : Drop the quorum

Having a quorum is a nice thing, especially if you discuss and decide
"hot" topics. In this case a quorum makes sense. For everything else we
have the fallback with a second meeting without quorum.
So why dropping or lowering he quorum?

> 4- Takeover protection ?
> a : Keep statutes as they are
> b : Add more criterium for the member to satisfy

As long as only people from EU can "take over", i don't care much. From
germany i know, that the member base in an association can be replaced
in 2 or 3 years. People join and leave or just join and never leave and
new people come and do the work.

> 5- Companies : sponsors or members ?
> a : Keep the statutes as they are
> b : Companies are sponsors

Companies are not members, companies are sponsors. Companies can send
individuals to be a member in the group ... as long as this individuals
are from europe ;-)

Kind regards

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group