Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL Europe Partners

From: Jean-Paul Argudo <jean-paul(at)postgresqlfr(dot)org>
To: pgeu-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Europe Partners
Date: 2012-08-27 14:48:51
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgeu-general
Hash: SHA1

Hi there,

Le 27/08/2012 16:40, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Gabriele Bartolini 
> <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> while renewing my membership to the association, I visited the
>> website and noticed in the "Sponsors" page that currently two
>> companies are considered partners
>> (
> Ugh. I think that page has been pretty much unmaintained for a
> while :( Those partner logos are there because of contractual
> requirements for pgday 2009, which had an unfortunate wording in it
> there.

Yep. I remember that clearly yes.

> For now, I'll remove them.

I'd prefer you wait for consent of interested parties. In other terms,
EnterpriseDB and Dalibo. Let's say me as the CEO for the latest part :D

FYI, I sent already the questions to my associates (dalibo team) and
we will have the answer shortly...

> Then we can consider the points you make below as well.

I fully agree with Gabriele tought. This has to be clarified !

>> I want to clarify that I do not want to discuss the legitimity of
>> those two partners (I do agree that they have contributed), I
>> rather want to focus on the process that's been followed, purely
>> for transaparency reasons.

And you're right.

>> I would encourage the board/management to add more information on
>> the website about the process for becoming a "Partner" of the
>> association, given that it is not described in the "Statute". For
>> example: sponsoring two/three Postgres conferences in a row,
>> contributing X man-hours a year, voting in a board meeting, etc.
> Yeah. The thing is that we don't actually *have* any. The whole 
> contents, except for the links, came to be from some unfortunate 
> contract wording, which is no longer being used.

Yes. But this contract, exists, and we have to cope with it.

Be sure Dalibo won't be a power of resistance tought. You all know
here I am fully a "pro" when it's about transparency.

> However.
> Suggestions for a good definition and process to use are most
> welcome - and once we have one, it should certainly be published!

How do we work on this topic, now it seems to be re-opened ?


- -- 
Jean-Paul Argudo
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


In response to


pgeu-general by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-08-27 14:53:29
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Europe Partners
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-08-27 14:40:25
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Europe Partners

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group