Re: Vote on Windows installer links

I might agree with some of what Simon wrote if he would begin by removing
his company contact details from his posts.

"People in glass houses shouldn't ..."

Also, I need someone to help me resolve my confusion:

Since when did organisations cease to be part of the community? If so, I
better exit now. My business is, as far as I am concerned, a member of the
community. I am its representative. We try to behave responsibly by not
taking advantage through our involvement. On the contrary, we try to make
contributions within the limited resources that we have available. From what
I have seen, this is generally the case with all members organisations.

But let's not lose sight of the fact that businesses must be fed with sales.
They are not charities. If a business invests (in sponsorship or any other
activity) it is done with the profit motive as the primary driver. If they
don't, they die. If they die, it impacts on the the community as a whole.
Can the community exist without businesses participation. Probably, but at a
much lower level of success.

This is not a club. If I'd wanted to join a club, I'd have joined the bloody
Boy Scouts! Yet so much of what is written seems to focus on a 'them and us
principle'; that there is 'the community' and the 'scabs in business'. I
just can't believe that this idea is being given any credence.

The question, it seems to me, is not whether organisations are members of
the community, rather I'd ask how to ensure that ALL members of the
community (individual and organisation alike) does not receive an unfair
advantage or apply unfair influence on the goals and activities of the
community as a whole.

Now that is the question I'd like to see addressed!

Rob Napier
(company name and address omitted)
(mission statement omitted)
Personal philosophy/religion omitted
Flagrant website self-promotion omitted

P.S. Apologies if my use of sarcasm to make a point has offended anyone.

On 10/7/09 6:48 PM, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 15:33 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> My point was that this is a difference of _degree_, not of _kind_.
>
> I agree.
>
> Personally, I would ban it all, but total bans require more policing
> than allowing some minor cases. We need to be reasonable.
>
> We must find a place to draw the line and then stick to it.
>
> It's clear to me and many others that the case of the Windows installer
> link is a step over the line and we (the project) must react. If the
> fair way to react is to set the line lower so that more than one company
> is effected, that's fine by me, even if it effects me directly.
>
> I don't think it is appropriate for relations with a company to be
> handled by project members that are also employees of that company,
> whatever the individual involved says. Objectivity is important and we
> as a project don't wish to endanger the employee-employer relationship.
> Again, this applies to all companies. So I would not ask Alvaro to speak
> to his employer, any more than I expect Bruce to be able to deal
> effectively with his; neither case is a comment on the individual.