Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap

On Jan 21, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:00:55 +0100
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
>>> I believe this cannot be left out. I am for 'b'. Companies are not
>>> members. Only individuals are members.
>>

My very personal opinion on this is that the influence of companies
on this group should be as minimal as possible.
I would also try to make sure that only real persons can be members.
PostgreSQL has grown as a community project and it has become a good
solution from a technical point of view because it did not "belong"
to a company.
Anything which makes us leave this path is dangerous.
A European user group should be a community thing - not a cheap forum
for companies.

>> Why shouldn't it be possible to leave it out?
>> (And for the record, I'm for 'b' as well, but i'd rather keep it out
>> completely)
>
> One reason would be the make it very clear exactly what the
> expectation
> of a Companies influence within the organization will be. If you leave
> it arbitrary, is essentially can be voted differently by the board at
> any time.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drkae
>

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.

best regards,

hans

--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
PostgreSQL Solutions and Support
Gröhrmühlgasse 26, 2700 Wiener Neustadt
Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340
www.postgresql.at, www.cybertec.at