Re: Release Candidate of the PostgreSQL Europe association statutes

Hi all,

> It is up to you folks but I strongly suggest *not* having companies be
> members. If you want companies to be *sponsors* that is good but the
> moment you allow companies to be members, they will *expect* something
> for that money. Explicitly things like direction and certain amounts of
> control.

Thats not true in France, and maybe Europe I guess.

For a company here, to take part of an OSS non-profit organization is
not to take any control on it or even expect something for the money.

Companies here do it mainly to support OSS things. Its a political act.

Its also a way to donate money too, like a simple sponsor would do.

But, *be part* of the organization gives it more political power.

As the director of dalibo (and because all of us here wanted to), we're
part of the APRIL Free Software non-profit group in France.

Just look at this:

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

This is the listing of companies wich are members of APRIL (April is in
the FSF-Europe Group, and then in the FSF Worldwide. There are also
links between April and other groups like EuCD, FFII, etc..).

AFAIK, none of those companies expect something from the APRIL group
directly.

We (company directors) just know they do good at advocacying (including
European Parliament lobbying...), and we all know they need money to do it.

So we support them that way. With the money, and with 'our logo'.

> People are members, companies are sponsors. I would also suggest that
> sponsorships be clearly defined as to the benefits thereof.

Sponsorship has to be defined too.

But I think you understood my point of view: be a member is a stronger
act compared to just giving money.

My 2 eurocents.

--
Jean-Paul Argudo
www.PostgreSQLFr.org