PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap

hello !

As you have notice, messages about the statutes for the upcoming association
have suddenly stopped a few days ago. My guess is that's not because of lack
of interest. i feel that this whole thread was very difficult to follow, so i
took the 60 e-mails and tried to write a sum-up.

check-it out : http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes_discuss

i tried to respect everyone's thoughts (using quotes as mush as possible) in
order to give a proper view of the issues we have to solve. however i may
have made mistakes or forgot some ideas. If you notice any of that the best
thing to do is to directly edit the wiki page. If you can't, please send me
your modifications in a private e-mail.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure what is the best way to continue on these subjects. Maybe
creating a separate thread for each issue, or proposing a poll, or some kind
of wiki-based work.

Either way we have to go forward on these 5 issues

Regards,

--
damien clochard
http://dalibo.org | http://dalibo.com

On 20/01/2008, damien clochard <damien(at)dalibo(dot)info> wrote:
> hello !
>
> As you have notice, messages about the statutes for the upcoming association
> have suddenly stopped a few days ago. My guess is that's not because of lack
> of interest. i feel that this whole thread was very difficult to follow, so i
> took the 60 e-mails and tried to write a sum-up.
>
> check-it out : http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes_discuss

Hi Damien,

Thank you for taking the time to summarise this.

> i tried to respect everyone's thoughts (using quotes as mush as possible) in
> order to give a proper view of the issues we have to solve. however i may
> have made mistakes or forgot some ideas. If you notice any of that the best
> thing to do is to directly edit the wiki page. If you can't, please send me
> your modifications in a private e-mail.

[...]

> I'm not sure what is the best way to continue on these subjects. Maybe
> creating a separate thread for each issue, or proposing a poll, or some kind
> of wiki-based work.

I would suggest seperate threads on the mailing list - that's how most
of us are most used to working. Unfortunately, this week and next are
probably not the best times to discuss things due to the imminent
release of 8.3 which is taking up time from a number of us, but I am
mindfull of the short timeframe in which we need to make decisions
prior to FOSDEM.

Are you happy to start the threads (perhaps staggered over a few days)
and kick off the decision making?

Regards, Dave

On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 05:53:56AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> hello !
>
> As you have notice, messages about the statutes for the upcoming association
> have suddenly stopped a few days ago. My guess is that's not because of lack
> of interest. i feel that this whole thread was very difficult to follow, so i
> took the 60 e-mails and tried to write a sum-up.

Thanks!

> check-it out : http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes_discuss
>
> i tried to respect everyone's thoughts (using quotes as mush as possible) in
> order to give a proper view of the issues we have to solve. however i may
> have made mistakes or forgot some ideas. If you notice any of that the best
> thing to do is to directly edit the wiki page. If you can't, please send me
> your modifications in a private e-mail.

I think using the list for discussion is what most of us are used to, so
let's do that...

> 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

Does this need to be in the statues at all? If we can keep it out of the
statues, that'll make it a lot easier to change it if need be.

> 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

This I think needs to be in the statues.

> 3- Quorum ?
> a : Keep the statutes as they are
> b : Lower the quorum
> c : Drop the quorum
>
> 4- Takeover protection ?
> a : Keep statutes as they are
> b : Add more criterium for the member to satisfy

Same with these two.

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

If #1 can be kept outside the statues, so can this one.

The way I see it, getting the stuff that needs to be in the statues done
quickly is the most important part. The less we can "lock up" in the
statues, the easier it will be for us to adapt to what the member wants
over time.

//Magnus

Ciao,

> 1- Membership fee ?
> > a : Keep the statutes as they are
> > b : No membership fee for people
> > c : Optional membership fee for people
>
> Does this need to be in the statues at all? If we can keep it out of the
> statues, that'll make it a lot easier to change it if need be.

Not the fee. That'd be a nightmare. But I guess we have to write in the
statute that there is a membership fee that needs to be paid.

> 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
>
> This I think needs to be in the statues.

Yep. I am for option B where applicable.

> 5- Companies : sponsors or members ?
> > a : Keep the statutes as they are
> > b : Companies are sponsors
>
> If #1 can be kept outside the statues, so can this one.

I believe this cannot be left out. I am for 'b'. Companies are not members.
Only individuals are members.

The way I see it, getting the stuff that needs to be in the statues done
> quickly is the most important part. The less we can "lock up" in the
> statues, the easier it will be for us to adapt to what the member wants
> over time.

I agree. But some stuff needs to be clear and solid since the beginning.
Thanks guys.

Ciao,
Gabriele

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 04:59:32PM +0100, Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
> Ciao,
>
> > 1- Membership fee ?
> > > a : Keep the statutes as they are
> > > b : No membership fee for people
> > > c : Optional membership fee for people
> >
> > Does this need to be in the statues at all? If we can keep it out of the
> > statues, that'll make it a lot easier to change it if need be.
>
>
> Not the fee. That'd be a nightmare. But I guess we have to write in the
> statute that there is a membership fee that needs to be paid.

I'd argue that we don't need to write that in the statues... We can leave
that up to the board to decide.

> > 5- Companies : sponsors or members ?
> > > a : Keep the statutes as they are
> > > b : Companies are sponsors
> >
> > If #1 can be kept outside the statues, so can this one.
>
>
> I believe this cannot be left out. I am for 'b'. Companies are not members.
> Only individuals are members.

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)

> The way I see it, getting the stuff that needs to be in the statues done
> > quickly is the most important part. The less we can "lock up" in the
> > statues, the easier it will be for us to adapt to what the member wants
> > over time.
>
>
> I agree. But some stuff needs to be clear and solid since the beginning.

Absolutely. The most important things are the rules for how to chaneg
things later :-)

//Magnus

-----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.
>
> 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

- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlMMfATb/zqfZUUQRAudfAKCa0jzYmYRyp1ebxjsQxEEjK6eadACfcJFb
oMlUrQInSAzQH48vy0cdd7E=
=zgov
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ciao Magnus,

I'd argue that we don't need to write that in the statues... We can leave
> that up to the board to decide.

The fee could change from year to year or every few years. The way I see it,
a statute should be carved on stone. :)

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)

Changes out of the statute are easier to do and do not require any official
administration procedure. For the reason I just said, I hope that this
decision won't ever change in the future. That's my opinion though.

Of course, writing in the statute does not prevent the statute to be
changed, but makes it harder. And potential members can see it a stronger
sign of the direction the NPO has taken since its foundation.

Absolutely. The most important things are the rules for how to chaneg
> things later :-)

:)

Ciao,
Gabriele

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:13:29 +0100
Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:

> 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

I thought I would provide a reference:

http://people.planetpostgresql.org/greg/index.php?/archives/120-Postgres-is-not-for-sale.html

*If* companies are members, members can effective "buy" PostgreSQL by
exerting influence over the various non profits and thus the resources
that PostgreSQL has. This is type of situation I am suggesting is not a
good one to get into.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlMa/ATb/zqfZUUQRAu+MAJ9K1c/0eA46gLmCBSVXxfhI6spBpQCgqmWN
pdXfIuE2mP121id2+lO9Qn8=
=+tCm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:03:17 +0100
"Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <ads(at)pgug(dot)de> wrote:

> > 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 ;-)
>

This is an interesting point. Are you saying that I could not be a
member of PGEU?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlNPiATb/zqfZUUQRAqBTAJ9xDdKhodxaomACnnttrUs+zqeGjQCfWRMf
axGLsglgW0+4XDhHPW6Xjfg=
=taQb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hmm,

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:18:26AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:03:17 +0100
> "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <ads(at)pgug(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > > 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 ;-)
> >
>
> This is an interesting point. Are you saying that I could not be a
> member of PGEU?

Hmm, my fault. You cannot vote, if you are not from europe. Should be
not a problem (or at least i don't see a problem here) for you to be a
member.

Bye

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:03:17 +0100
> "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <ads(at)pgug(dot)de> wrote:
>
>>> 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 ;-)
>
>
> This is an interesting point. Are you saying that I could not be a
> member of PGEU?

IIRC, and I'm not checking the actual text here :-P, you can be a member
of pgeu, but you cannot be on the board.

//Magnus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:28:31 +0100
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:

> > This is an interesting point. Are you saying that I could not be a
> > member of PGEU?
>
> IIRC, and I'm not checking the actual text here :-P, you can be a
> member of pgeu, but you cannot be on the board.

That seems odd, not that I am lobbying or anything. Is this about
Europe or about being European?

It would seem to me that you want people on the board, regardless of
citizenship that can help the EU group in the most positive way.

SPI for example does not have any such requirement.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> //Magnus
>

- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlNb8ATb/zqfZUUQRAt6AAJ49Ezg6b20jg9hqbffm3IbYUQq2UwCfQ4sO
B8V1hnvZTaCOKsizwDwvwvo=
=+Qz4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:28:31 +0100
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
>>> This is an interesting point. Are you saying that I could not be a
>>> member of PGEU?
>> IIRC, and I'm not checking the actual text here :-P, you can be a
>> member of pgeu, but you cannot be on the board.
>
> That seems odd, not that I am lobbying or anything. Is this about
> Europe or about being European?
>
> It would seem to me that you want people on the board, regardless of
> citizenship that can help the EU group in the most positive way.

We are, IIRC, requesting that you're either a european citizen or live
in europe. Either one will work.

And please note that this being an *EU* country is *not* a requirement.
Just european. Yes, they're different.

> SPI for example does not have any such requirement.

But SPI is a global organization, no?

//Magnus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:40:13 +0100
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:

> And please note that this being an *EU* country is *not* a
> requirement. Just european. Yes, they're different.
>
> > SPI for example does not have any such requirement.
>
> But SPI is a global organization, no?

(I don't want to get into semantics)

But not really. It is US Non profit. We do support organizations around
the world of course (in theory). For example SPI sponsored the PgDay.IT
last year.

I think we (as the postgresql community) should focus on regional
efforts but that regional efforts should be handled by those most
capable, regardless of where they are.

PGEU is a regional effort but if there is a distinct limitation on
participation I can see friction being caused between PGEU and the
other larger organizations such as SPI or USPUG (should it ever exist).

I would absolutely hate to think that we would as a US org limit our
ability to get things done by people only in the US. I think it would
create a rift in the community.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlNoDATb/zqfZUUQRAoa7AJ9Sm71QDW8CselolJpXkRdKGOTveACfahQ6
3NJ1kej82Fj6CJG6dBVlkcI=
=twnB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:40:13 +0100
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
>> And please note that this being an *EU* country is *not* a
>> requirement. Just european. Yes, they're different.
>
>>> SPI for example does not have any such requirement.
>> But SPI is a global organization, no?
>
> (I don't want to get into semantics)
>
> But not really. It is US Non profit. We do support organizations around
> the world of course (in theory). For example SPI sponsored the PgDay.IT
> last year.
>

Does this mean that a french guy and a chinese one can be president of
SPI ? because you can be a member of PostgreSQLfr or PG-eu, you can work
with us, you can sponsor us... but you can't vote and you can't be
elected in PostgreSQLfr or PG_eu.

Regards.

--
Guillaume.
http://www.postgresqlfr.org
http://dalibo.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:57:29 +0100
Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:

> Does this mean that a french guy and a chinese one can be president
> of SPI ? because you can be a member of PostgreSQLfr or PG-eu, you
> can work with us, you can sponsor us... but you can't vote and you
> can't be elected in PostgreSQLfr or PG_eu.

Yes and SPI has in fact had non US citizens hold every office except
treasurer. The treasurer needs physical access to the bank.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlN7PATb/zqfZUUQRAoJ9AJ467ywX+QnwwrPl8tnTKMGhlX0wzACfX0Bq
pyun7oQYv09SOwDrtOEW8uE=
=9B30
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi all,

>> 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.

I understand your point of view. But don't think that PostgreSQL project
can be ownable, it is not. Just the same as the product himself.

More over, we're talking about an organization advocaying PostgreSQL,
not the project/product himself.

Finaly, you can't buy a non-profit.

To me, having companies being members of Open-Source or Free Software
*non profit* organization don't give them any chance of something weird.

Thats why statutes are there. They define everything there...

As I said on another thread, having companies inside the non-profit
association gives it more power and visibility. Its a kind of endorsment.

> I thought I would provide a reference:
> http://people.planetpostgresql.org/greg/index.php?/archives/120-Postgres-is-not-for-sale.html

Fr version I did translate today, some hours ago:

http://www.postgresqlfr.org/?q=node/1529

Excellent article :)

> *If* companies are members, members can effective "buy" PostgreSQL by
> exerting influence over the various non profits and thus the resources
> that PostgreSQL has.

No. Companies are members just to say the world:

« Hey, Im a corporate, I think PostgreSQL rulez, so I give them money
and my name too. They can tell the world I use PostgreSQL. And Im a
member of it, lets say I help them daily, or sometimes. With money, with
the time my employees give to the project (or the product, to follow
Greg's article) or with servers I give the project....»

We can write down in the statutes that every member, legal, corporate or
even sigle-person can be *fired* from the organization in anything we
dont like: just write that in statutes, don't you think ?

Its our statues, lets write things like we do want.

> This is type of situation I am suggesting is not a
> good one to get into.

The main point to me is the difference between Sponsorship and Activitism.

As I said already, be a member of something is a far stronger thing than
simply giving money, time or hardware. Its a political act.

Thinking in advance that company may/will be member only to take an
advantage on something is saying to companies, and CEO/CTO/whatever,
that they're eveil and that we are all white holy horses compared to them.

Dalibo(my company) and PostgreSQLFr (non-profit) are both members of
APRIL, an FSF-like organization in France. Our voice counts no more, no
less, than a voice. So every single person has the same weight of us,
but, as you'll see on this page:

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

.. such a listing gives something strong to April: they represent not
only persons, but also non-profit, profit and gouvernement organizations.

This is not the same to me...

Cheers,

--
Jean-Paul Argudo
www.PostgreSQLFr.org

> > >
> > > 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 ;-)
> >
> > This is an interesting point. Are you saying that I could not be a
> > member of PGEU?
>
> Hmm, my fault. You cannot vote, if you are not from europe. Should be
> not a problem (or at least i don't see a problem here) for you to be a
> member.
>
>

To put things clear , there's no word about nationality or citizenship in the
statutes for the simple reason that it would probably be illegal in France.
We cannot set a rule to specify that the members have to live or to be born
in some specific countries. I'm not a lawyer but that sounds like
discrimination to me.

As far as i understand, Andreas is talking about the voting rules that have
been proposed :

http://www.pgug.eu/election.txt

These voting rules are something different from the statutes and in order to
keep things clear i think we should talk about that citizenship issue in the
election thread :

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgeu-general/2008-01/msg00039.php

--
damien clochard
http://dalibo.org | http://dalibo.com

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 10:05:03AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:57:29 +0100
> Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>
> > Does this mean that a french guy and a chinese one can be president
> > of SPI ? because you can be a member of PostgreSQLfr or PG-eu, you
> > can work with us, you can sponsor us... but you can't vote and you
> > can't be elected in PostgreSQLfr or PG_eu.
>
> Yes and SPI has in fact had non US citizens hold every office except
> treasurer. The treasurer needs physical access to the bank.

Imho we don't must copy SPI here in every possible way.

It seems, the eu user group is for promoting PostgreSQL in europe and
for having an user group for people from europe where SPI is "just" for
promoting free software.

Yes, SPI is US based, but they don't focus on US only, or? For the eu
group we have "europe" in the name, so let's focus (but not restrict) on
that topic.

Kind regards

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:06:56 +0100
"Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <ads(at)pgug(dot)de> wrote:

> > Yes and SPI has in fact had non US citizens hold every office except
> > treasurer. The treasurer needs physical access to the bank.
>
> Imho we don't must copy SPI here in every possible way.

Of course not. I was just answering the question.

>
> Yes, SPI is US based, but they don't focus on US only, or? For the eu
> group we have "europe" in the name, so let's focus (but not restrict)
> on that topic.
>

My opinion is simple. It is the members that should decide who is on
the board and the board who decides who is an officer. The nationality
or citizenship shouldn't matter.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlPUzATb/zqfZUUQRAucZAJwIgkd8M7w4nnPl9+MKxSopZiFLSQCfUGhP
4ivNfxNeVFBTmwbGBkeG5MQ=
=jAwA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 01:52:54PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 05:53:56AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> > hello !
> >
> > As you have notice, messages about the statutes for the upcoming association
> > have suddenly stopped a few days ago. My guess is that's not because of lack
> > of interest. i feel that this whole thread was very difficult to follow, so i
> > took the 60 e-mails and tried to write a sum-up.
>
> Thanks!

Yes, excellent work!

> > check-it out : http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes_discuss
> >
> > i tried to respect everyone's thoughts (using quotes as mush as possible) in
> > order to give a proper view of the issues we have to solve. however i may
> > have made mistakes or forgot some ideas. If you notice any of that the best
> > thing to do is to directly edit the wiki page. If you can't, please send me
> > your modifications in a private e-mail.
>
> I think using the list for discussion is what most of us are used to, so
> let's do that...

I'm quite comfortable with wiki's, but mailing list is fine for me too.

> > 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
>
> Does this need to be in the statues at all? If we can keep it out of the
> statues, that'll make it a lot easier to change it if need be.

There will have to be some definition of 'member' in the statutes. Else a statement such as 'at least 2/3 of the members must be in favour' or phrases like that are meaningless within the statutes..

> > 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
>
> This I think needs to be in the statues.

And in close discussion with those local groups!

> The way I see it, getting the stuff that needs to be in the statues done
> quickly is the most important part. The less we can "lock up" in the
> statues, the easier it will be for us to adapt to what the member wants
> over time.

The definition of what constitutes a member is a very important one to be in the statutes.

Gr,

Koen

- --
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlcJCktDgRrkFPpYRAqVWAJ4yS7TFghU5WapLeRDNRLGvumgfxQCgiWoX
mcCKKLADzU5n5qbHgaMpa+M=
=WCT7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 04:59:32PM +0100, Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
> > 5- Companies : sponsors or members ?
> > > a : Keep the statutes as they are
> > > b : Companies are sponsors
> >
> > If #1 can be kept outside the statues, so can this one.
>
>
> I believe this cannot be left out. I am for 'b'. Companies are not members.
> Only individuals are members.

+1

> The way I see it, getting the stuff that needs to be in the statues done
> > quickly is the most important part. The less we can "lock up" in the
> > statues, the easier it will be for us to adapt to what the member wants
> > over time.
>
>
> I agree. But some stuff needs to be clear and solid since the beginning.

Absolutely, remember: they might seem like a mere formality now but when shit hits the fan (as shit has a tendency to do, especially in organisations such as we are proposing now unfortunately), they will be scrutinized.

I saw some suggestions of statutes to look in (SPI being one of them iirc), i haven't had the time but it would be very good to see if there are sensible articles we could copy from there.

I don't remember, was there a provision for members to force an (extraordinary) general assembly?

Gr,

Koen

- --
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlcc9ktDgRrkFPpYRAl82AJ9VsllUnAsk4SVmI02lvu+qrU8rcwCfYK4k
rIWIRMY/3S7trz/Hq3+1w5I=
=1+Zf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 05:00:55PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I'd argue that we don't need to write that in the statues... We can leave
> that up to the board to decide.

And I would argue very much against that! It needs to be in the statutes. You can not
have open-ended definitions of what a member is!

> > > 5- Companies : sponsors or members ?
> > > > a : Keep the statutes as they are
> > > > b : Companies are sponsors
> > >
> > > If #1 can be kept outside the statues, so can this one.
> >
> >
> > I believe this cannot be left out. I am for 'b'. Companies are not members.
> > Only individuals are members.
>
> 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)

I think in my previous email I +1'ed wrongly. What I +1'ed to was, that only individuals can be members. And that is all that has to be in the statutes. Sponsorship is not a statutory thing, unless you want to assign democratic power to the sponsors which we don't iirc.

Gr,

Koen

- --
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlcfSktDgRrkFPpYRAokcAKCc6rcfeDK0A7xzyhdZZYc0i9yeQgCfXz+v
LPGSQ+OiX3pKjinEGLzalB4=
=WBro
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 08:06:53AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > 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.

I don't think so. I don't think the board should even have these powers. The board
is there to execute the members instructions, no? I would very much be against
an organisation where the board can just do as it sees fit with statutory changes
et all.

So therefore, leaving out that the companies have power effectively defines that
the companies have no power over the organisation whatsoever.

Gr,

Koen

- --
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlcmtktDgRrkFPpYRAqXaAKC3nEtTIeA8BqaN9DEw+TTu59sZ9gCgk+OC
HkBwrtEaKxLZoaqtd+TvDMc=
=mol3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 05:10:37PM +0100, Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
> Ciao Magnus,
>
> I'd argue that we don't need to write that in the statues... We can leave
> > that up to the board to decide.
>
>
> The fee could change from year to year or every few years. The way I see it,
> a statute should be carved on stone. :)

But it should not be the board who decide on the hight of the fee, but the GA.

The GA might even decide on a fee of 0 euro's, as has been suggested.

Gr,

Koen

- --
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlcpnktDgRrkFPpYRAtwuAKCCdj/m9ybonoyfd8Cf4sC4MxFB6wCfYTXL
JYxXPVrpwD0mo18Z3Qjo/Qk=
=Y8CT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

damien clochard a écrit :
> hello !
>
> As you have notice, messages about the statutes for the upcoming association
> have suddenly stopped a few days ago. My guess is that's not because of lack
> of interest. i feel that this whole thread was very difficult to follow, so i
> took the 60 e-mails and tried to write a sum-up.
>
> check-it out : http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes_discuss
>
> i tried to respect everyone's thoughts (using quotes as mush as possible) in
> order to give a proper view of the issues we have to solve. however i may
> have made mistakes or forgot some ideas. If you notice any of that the best
> thing to do is to directly edit the wiki page. If you can't, please send me
> your modifications in a private e-mail.
>
> 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
>

I vote 1-c

>
> 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 vote 2-c

> 3- Quorum ?
> a : Keep the statutes as they are
> b : Lower the quorum
> c : Drop the quorum
>
>
3-a
> 4- Takeover protection ?
> a : Keep statutes as they are
> b : Add more criterium for the member to satisfy
>
>
4-b

I've already sent something for that, I like the folowing option:
to the susbcriber to be accepted, it need to be already member of a
local group (localgroup that need to be recognize by pg-eu, to have same
objectives), OR it need to be accepted by the board or a comitee of pg-eu.

In both case subscriber must be a real human to be "active member".

It is only an idea, and it need to be rewrite...

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

Companies can not be member with the rights to vote and decide (so they
can not be 'active member' but 'benefactor members'). In that case I am
not aware if we can put the fee at a minimum, or if it is welcome ? (see
above)
> I'm not sure what is the best way to continue on these subjects. Maybe
> creating a separate thread for each issue, or proposing a poll, or some kind
> of wiki-based work.
>

It seems that we stick at outlook usage.

> Either way we have to go forward on these 5 issues
>
> Regards,
>
>

--
Cédric Villemain
Administrateur de Base de Données
Cel: +33 (0)6 74 15 56 53
http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 06:03:17PM +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 05:53:56AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> > 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?

Because it is very likely that you don't get a quorum _ever_ on GA's. As
explained, I expect that you will have such a second GA where the quorum
is dropped most of the times anyway, so it is more practical to drop it.

Obviously, for 'hot' topics ('shall we dismantle') the quorum should be
there, yes.

Again, it is just my experience with how these kind of international
organisations work out in reality. Maybe PGEU is different, and you will
have all those members show up at the GA. I really doubt it though.

> > 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.

Letting my fantasy go here: it could also be, say, oracle that wants to
frustrate the postgresql eu activities and thus enlists all its
employeees to sign up right before a GA where something crucial is going
to be decided and force the vote.

Do we care about such a scenario? However unlikely it may be, things
like this can happen.

> > 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 ;-)

Agreed, apart from the 'from europe' bit maybe, although i don't feel
strongly about that.

Gr,

Koen

--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:53:25AM +0100, Koen Martens wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 06:03:17PM +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 05:53:56AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> Because it is very likely that you don't get a quorum _ever_ on GA's. As
> explained, I expect that you will have such a second GA where the quorum
> is dropped most of the times anyway, so it is more practical to drop it.

Yes, it's annoying, but that's democracy.
You don't drop elections at all just because you know in advance that no
candidate will have a quorum. You make a first vote and then pick the
two best candidates and have a second ballot.

> Obviously, for 'hot' topics ('shall we dismantle') the quorum should be
> there, yes.

Who defines, what is a "hot" topic?
If the board announces that we vote about rising the membership fee,
maybe the topic is interesting enough that enough ppl show up the first
time. If not, we get the chance to decide anyway.

> Again, it is just my experience with how these kind of international
> organisations work out in reality. Maybe PGEU is different, and you will
> have all those members show up at the GA. I really doubt it though.

I'm also in doubt, but that's no reason at all to remove democratic
principles. Otherwise we don't need a user group at all and can just go
with the board of directors.

> > > 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.
>
> Letting my fantasy go here: it could also be, say, oracle that wants to
> frustrate the postgresql eu activities and thus enlists all its
> employeees to sign up right before a GA where something crucial is going
> to be decided and force the vote.
>
> Do we care about such a scenario? However unlikely it may be, things
> like this can happen.

And? How should we avoid this scenario? If this happens, ok. In this
case not even a quorum helps.

Bye

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:49:22AM +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:53:25AM +0100, Koen Martens wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 06:03:17PM +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 05:53:56AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Because it is very likely that you don't get a quorum _ever_ on GA's. As
> > explained, I expect that you will have such a second GA where the quorum
> > is dropped most of the times anyway, so it is more practical to drop it.
>
> Yes, it's annoying, but that's democracy.

Well, their are various interpretations on democracy. I know that in
Belgium you are obligated to vote, but in the Netherlands, no such
obligation exists. There is also no lower bound for the number of voters
that show up to make the elections valid.

A reasonable interpretation of democracy would be, for me, that those
who want to have a voice may have a voice, but that it is not the case
that everyone who could have a voice therefore must have a voice.

Think of the whole ooxml debacle. Apparently, MS has instructed so many
new members to vote for ooxml, members that don't care about any other
subjects the ISO wg is working on. Those other subjects can now not be
decided upon, because the MS members don't show up on meetings and no
quorum is met.

I understand your objection, but i sincerely think it is unneccesary, as
long as you:

- announce the GA widely, guarantee that each member is aware of it
- announce it timely
- have no obstructions to joining the ga

For what it is worth, i have rarely if ever seen an organisation that
stipulates that at least X % of the members must be at the GA for it to
be a valid GA. It just isn't necessary and in this case particular will
mean a lot of extra travelling because you will end up with that second
GA (think of the CO2, travel-budgets of attendants, ...).

> You don't drop elections at all just because you know in advance that no
> candidate will have a quorum. You make a first vote and then pick the
> two best candidates and have a second ballot.

Unrelated. You could as well define the quorum to be relative to the
number of voters attending (as is done with most organisations afaik).

> > Obviously, for 'hot' topics ('shall we dismantle') the quorum should be
> > there, yes.
>
> Who defines, what is a "hot" topic?

The statutes. For example, dismantling the organisation is a hot topic.
There are not that many hot topics, i just mentioned one. Situations
where the board has become disfunctional might entail others. Actually,
only dismantling and changing of the statutes are such hot topics i
think.

You could add a provision, where it is possible to elevate a GA to a GA
with a quorum, for example by requiring 2/3 of the members calling for a
GA with quorum. That way, you avoid the double GA's but still give the
members an emergency break.

> > Again, it is just my experience with how these kind of international
> > organisations work out in reality. Maybe PGEU is different, and you will
> > have all those members show up at the GA. I really doubt it though.
>
> I'm also in doubt, but that's no reason at all to remove democratic
> principles. Otherwise we don't need a user group at all and can just go
> with the board of directors.

I'm not advocating to remove democratic principles. I'm just trying to
get a pragmatic application of them for the PGEU. Rather than saying:
'yes, you _all_ _must_ show up at the GA always' i'd rather have 'you may
show up if you want your voice heard, and if you think a subject is hot
you may call for a quorum'. That way, the democratic principles (apart
from the immense discussion a definition of democratic principles could
lead to :) are safeguarded, but so is the continuity of the group.

Of course: we haven't quite decided on what our forum for the GA's would
be. IRL or IRC. Having electronic GA's might change things, but then you
would have to devise of ways to verify that those present are those they
say they are.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > Letting my fantasy go here: it could also be, say, oracle that wants to
> > frustrate the postgresql eu activities and thus enlists all its
> > employeees to sign up right before a GA where something crucial is going
> > to be decided and force the vote.
> >
> > Do we care about such a scenario? However unlikely it may be, things
> > like this can happen.
>
> And? How should we avoid this scenario? If this happens, ok. In this
> case not even a quorum helps.

This is normally tackled by having a 'quarantaine' for new members. Eg,
voting only after first 3 months of membership. Of course, Evil Company
could just wait three months and take over anyway, at least there is
some time to investigate whether the sudden influx of new members is
suspicious.

Gr,

Koen

--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/

On Wednesday 23 January 2008 10:53:25 Koen Martens wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 06:03:17PM +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 05:53:56AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> Because it is very likely that you don't get a quorum _ever_ on GA's. As
> explained, I expect that you will have such a second GA where the quorum
> is dropped most of the times anyway, so it is more practical to drop it.
>
> Obviously, for 'hot' topics ('shall we dismantle') the quorum should be
> there, yes.
>
> Again, it is just my experience with how these kind of international
> organisations work out in reality. Maybe PGEU is different, and you will
> have all those members show up at the GA. I really doubt it though.
>

Maybe we can use a practical example to figure out how that quorum thing
works...

Let's imagine a GA meeting where only 10% of the members are present or
represented . Theses 10% are very stupid guys . They want to use all the
money of the association to buy something useless ( a billion of human-size
plush elephants ). One of them proposes the stupid and useless idea , the GA
votes and says "yes".

1/ What if no quorum is needed ? Well the decision is set in stone. We cannot
go back. As the GA is the most powerful entity of the association, the board
of directors will have to obey and execute the GA decision. The Association
buys a billion of plush elephants and we're broke.

2/ What if a quorum of 30% is needed ? the GA took a decision but the quorum
has not been reached. The decision is not valid yet and Board of Directors
doesn't have to execute it. An e-mail is sent to every members explaining
what decision the GA wanted to vote . Another GA is proposed at least 7 days
after and within 30 days. This second GA will have no quorum required of
course, but it will leaves us some time to discuss and prepare the second
voting. This second GA can happen over IRC and/or e-mail voting can be
allowed so that every members can participate. The majority of the members
refuse the decision. Billion of human-size plush elephants go elsewhere.

In the first case, a minority can easily takeover the association, in the
other we all have a few days ( between 7 and 30 ) to wake up and block the
stupid and useless decisions.

To me this quorum thing only implies that we need a second GA, which is just
some kind of a simple validation of the first one.

--
damien clochard
http://dalibo.org | http://dalibo.com

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 01:08:20PM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 January 2008 10:53:25 Koen Martens wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 06:03:17PM +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 05:53:56AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Because it is very likely that you don't get a quorum _ever_ on GA's. As
> > explained, I expect that you will have such a second GA where the quorum
> > is dropped most of the times anyway, so it is more practical to drop it.
> >
> > Obviously, for 'hot' topics ('shall we dismantle') the quorum should be
> > there, yes.
> >
> > Again, it is just my experience with how these kind of international
> > organisations work out in reality. Maybe PGEU is different, and you will
> > have all those members show up at the GA. I really doubt it though.
> >
>
> Maybe we can use a practical example to figure out how that quorum thing
> works...
>
> Let's imagine a GA meeting where only 10% of the members are present or
> represented . Theses 10% are very stupid guys . They want to use all the
> money of the association to buy something useless ( a billion of human-size
> plush elephants ). One of them proposes the stupid and useless idea , the GA
> votes and says "yes".

Now, human-size plush elephants sounds like a great idea. But if we can
afford a billion of them, let's buy Sun instead ;-)

> 1/ What if no quorum is needed ? Well the decision is set in stone. We cannot
> go back. As the GA is the most powerful entity of the association, the board
> of directors will have to obey and execute the GA decision. The Association
> buys a billion of plush elephants and we're broke.
>
> 2/ What if a quorum of 30% is needed ? the GA took a decision but the quorum
> has not been reached. The decision is not valid yet and Board of Directors
> doesn't have to execute it. An e-mail is sent to every members explaining
> what decision the GA wanted to vote . Another GA is proposed at least 7 days
> after and within 30 days. This second GA will have no quorum required of
> course, but it will leaves us some time to discuss and prepare the second
> voting. This second GA can happen over IRC and/or e-mail voting can be
> allowed so that every members can participate. The majority of the members
> refuse the decision. Billion of human-size plush elephants go elsewhere.
>
> In the first case, a minority can easily takeover the association, in the
> other we all have a few days ( between 7 and 30 ) to wake up and block the
> stupid and useless decisions.
>
> To me this quorum thing only implies that we need a second GA, which is just
> some kind of a simple validation of the first one.

It does make sense. As long as there is the fallback so that we don't have
to keep calling new GAs over and over and over again. If it's just a
one-step fallback, that's fine.

OTOH, it pretty much makes it *impossible* for an in-person GA to ever make
a decision - it will always fallback to a secondary one, and that one is
not likely to be in-person but online instead. But that's probably not
entirely unreasonable.

//Magnus

Ciao guys,
> This is normally tackled by having a 'quarantaine' for new members. Eg,
> voting only after first 3 months of membership. Of course, Evil Company
> could just wait three months and take over anyway, at least there is
> some time to investigate whether the sudden influx of new members is
> suspicious.
Let's not forget that, at the end of the day, this is all volunteering
activity. The more complex things get, the more hard are to manage and
maintain.

The feeling I have is that things are probably getting too complicated,
but that may be my (wrong) impression.

Ciao,
Gabriele

--
Gabriele Bartolini: Open source programmer and data architect
Current Location: Prato, Tuscany, Italy
gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)gmail(dot)com | www.gabrielebartolini.it
"If I had been born ugly, you would never have heard of Pelé", George Best
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gbartolini

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 01:28:34PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 01:08:20PM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> >
> > Maybe we can use a practical example to figure out how that quorum thing
> > works...
> >
> > Let's imagine a GA meeting where only 10% of the members are present or
> > represented . Theses 10% are very stupid guys . They want to use all the
> > money of the association to buy something useless ( a billion of human-size
> > plush elephants ). One of them proposes the stupid and useless idea , the GA
> > votes and says "yes".
>
> Now, human-size plush elephants sounds like a great idea. But if we can
> afford a billion of them, let's buy Sun instead ;-)

Nah, let's have the elephants.

> > 1/ What if no quorum is needed ? Well the decision is set in stone. We cannot
> > go back. As the GA is the most powerful entity of the association, the board
> > of directors will have to obey and execute the GA decision. The Association
> > buys a billion of plush elephants and we're broke.
> >
> > 2/ What if a quorum of 30% is needed ? the GA took a decision but the quorum
> > has not been reached. The decision is not valid yet and Board of Directors
> > doesn't have to execute it. An e-mail is sent to every members explaining
> > what decision the GA wanted to vote . Another GA is proposed at least 7 days
> > after and within 30 days. This second GA will have no quorum required of
> > course, but it will leaves us some time to discuss and prepare the second
> > voting. This second GA can happen over IRC and/or e-mail voting can be
> > allowed so that every members can participate. The majority of the members
> > refuse the decision. Billion of human-size plush elephants go elsewhere.
> >
> > In the first case, a minority can easily takeover the association, in the
> > other we all have a few days ( between 7 and 30 ) to wake up and block the
> > stupid and useless decisions.
> >
> > To me this quorum thing only implies that we need a second GA, which is just
> > some kind of a simple validation of the first one.

Well, the board can always resign if they don't want to carry out the result of
the vote, but that's a bit drastic.

In the example, you say there's only stupid people. You prevent that by having
proper announcement to all your members and not choose a location for the GA
that is at a far-off corner of the region the members are from.

If the members do not agree with what has been decided at the GA (a quorumless one),
they can always call for a GA to reverse the decision (if that is in the statutes, that
members can call for a GA).

> It does make sense. As long as there is the fallback so that we don't have
> to keep calling new GAs over and over and over again. If it's just a
> one-step fallback, that's fine.
>
> OTOH, it pretty much makes it *impossible* for an in-person GA to ever make
> a decision - it will always fallback to a secondary one, and that one is
> not likely to be in-person but online instead. But that's probably not
> entirely unreasonable.

In that case, that 'it pretty much makes it *impossible* for an in-person GA to ever
make a decision', why have that first meeting at all? Sounds like a convoluted procedure
to get things done. Plus, it doesn't really motivate people to attend a GA, knowing that
(or learning that) it isn't valid and a second one is needed. I'd feel screwed.

Thinking along that line: if you want to maintain the quorum you have no choice but to
have electronic GA's (or just votes). I'm curious how we would solve all the problems
inherent to electronic voting and identity verification though.

Anyway, I think i will let this rest. It is clear i'm a minority thinking that we will
always have two GA's because you will never get a quorum. Or to put it better: i'm in a
minority thinking this is a problem.

Perhaps i'm thinking along the wrong lines here. I was thinking the association could be
big, maybe 1000 or more members. But if you limit it to the 'in-crowd' i'm sure attendance
figures of a GA will be much better and a quorum won't be such a problem.

(ps: 30% of 1000 is 300, so you'd have to get 300 people at the GA to be able to make
a decision.. quite a lot..)

I'll just not show up on the first one, because i can be sure a second one will
follow :) I'm not rich or anything, so i have to choose in these things. I can't
just go to any happening i'd like to visit.

Gr,

Koen

- --
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHl2wKktDgRrkFPpYRAiS8AKCCRzAgFndMOFhdsDLxAKrRVyUYJQCeLLRU
PonU/d3+/eWH8ugSJdcwF04=
=5ofY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Monday 21 January 2008 Joshua D. Drake's cat, walking on the keyboard,
wrote:
> My opinion is simple. It is the members that should decide who is on
> the board and the board who decides who is an officer. The nationality
> or citizenship shouldn't matter.

That's true for a global organization, but I guess that for an eu organization
locality matters, and while we can have members and contributors from all
around the world, having directors that are let's say "too much" outside the
eu could lead to a bad leadership.

Luca

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:50:47 +0100
Luca Ferrari <fluca1978(at)infinito(dot)it> wrote:

> On Monday 21 January 2008 Joshua D. Drake's cat, walking on the
> keyboard, wrote:
> > My opinion is simple. It is the members that should decide who is on
> > the board and the board who decides who is an officer. The
> > nationality or citizenship shouldn't matter.
>
> That's true for a global organization, but I guess that for an eu
> organization locality matters, and while we can have members and
> contributors from all around the world, having directors that are
> let's say "too much" outside the eu could lead to a bad leadership.

Wouldn't that be up to the membership to decide? I would think that the
membership would only vote for people who what they feel are best for
the position.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 07:36 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:50:47 +0100
> Luca Ferrari <fluca1978(at)infinito(dot)it> wrote:
>
> > On Monday 21 January 2008 Joshua D. Drake's cat, walking on the
> > keyboard, wrote:
> > > My opinion is simple. It is the members that should decide who is on
> > > the board and the board who decides who is an officer. The
> > > nationality or citizenship shouldn't matter.
> >
> > That's true for a global organization, but I guess that for an eu
> > organization locality matters, and while we can have members and
> > contributors from all around the world, having directors that are
> > let's say "too much" outside the eu could lead to a bad leadership.
>
> Wouldn't that be up to the membership to decide? I would think that the
> membership would only vote for people who what they feel are best for
> the position.

Not really. It's important that the people that get voted in have all
the legal capabilities to act within Europe, as well as other practical
aspects like being in the same timezones.

Otherwise we may as well call this PostgreSQL Antarctica. People are
welcome to set that up too, on a different list.

Please let common sense prevail. We don't want to put silly rules in
place to prevent "outsiders", but if you ain't from Europe: You're
welcome here, but not as an *active* participant. That is for simple
practical reasons, not malicious ones.

--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

>
> Not really. It's important that the people that get voted in have all
> the legal capabilities to act within Europe, as well as other
> practical
> aspects like being in the same timezones.
>

+1

> Otherwise we may as well call this PostgreSQL Antarctica. People are
> welcome to set that up too, on a different list.
>

+1

> Please let common sense prevail. We don't want to put silly rules in
> place to prevent "outsiders", but if you ain't from Europe: You're
> welcome here, but not as an *active* participant. That is for simple
> practical reasons, not malicious ones.
>

+1

> --
> Simon Riggs
> 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

--
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

On Jan 25, 2008 9:15 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Not really. It's important that the people that get voted in have all
> the legal capabilities to act within Europe, as well as other practical
> aspects like being in the same timezones.
>
> Otherwise we may as well call this PostgreSQL Antarctica. People are
> welcome to set that up too, on a different list.
>
> Please let common sense prevail. We don't want to put silly rules in
> place to prevent "outsiders", but if you ain't from Europe: You're
> welcome here, but not as an *active* participant. That is for simple
> practical reasons, not malicious ones.

Agreed, where *active* means active in an official position.

/D

On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:15:07AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> Please let common sense prevail. We don't want to put silly rules in
> place to prevent "outsiders", but if you ain't from Europe: You're
> welcome here, but not as an *active* participant. That is for simple
> practical reasons, not malicious ones.

True words!

+1

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group

On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:34:57PM +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:15:07AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > Please let common sense prevail. We don't want to put silly rules in
> > place to prevent "outsiders", but if you ain't from Europe: You're
> > welcome here, but not as an *active* participant. That is for simple
> > practical reasons, not malicious ones.
>
> True words!
>
> +1

Yeah, another +1 from here.

//Magnus

one more question - maybe i lost this info because I might have not
read all emails.
is there a way to vote if somebody is not at fosdem?
i think this will apply for many people.

many thanks,

hans

On Jan 25, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:34:57PM +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:15:07AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> Please let common sense prevail. We don't want to put silly rules in
>>> place to prevent "outsiders", but if you ain't from Europe: You're
>>> welcome here, but not as an *active* participant. That is for simple
>>> practical reasons, not malicious ones.
>>
>> True words!
>>
>> +1
>
> Yeah, another +1 from here.
>
> //Magnus
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that
> your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

--
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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:15:07 +0000
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> Otherwise we may as well call this PostgreSQL Antarctica. People are
> welcome to set that up too, on a different list.
>
> Please let common sense prevail. We don't want to put silly rules in
> place to prevent "outsiders", but if you ain't from Europe: You're
> welcome here, but not as an *active* participant. That is for simple
> practical reasons, not malicious ones.

It is really very simple, any representative body of PostgreSQL should
be subject to the community. You are saying it won't be.

If it is the communities will that a EU member from Chile be on board
then that is the communities will and it should be done.

The people arguing against this are presenting themselves as not
trusting the very members they are trying to organize to make the
correct decisions about the organization.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHmgiXATb/zqfZUUQRAu6xAJ47XxS9c9cCWu5dxObCh5ZAW4l1qQCgm1Gg
e0INglLKnIjThuQB/7TBddc=
=rYaa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:09:41 +0100
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:

> > > Please let common sense prevail. We don't want to put silly rules
> > > in place to prevent "outsiders", but if you ain't from Europe:
> > > You're welcome here, but not as an *active* participant. That is
> > > for simple practical reasons, not malicious ones.
> >

As a note, I don't think any of this is malicious.

Sincerely.

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHmgkyATb/zqfZUUQRApcWAJ4kBLI8A6JlGEvTn5Ab375tQIDPZACfadkA
78QU2ZMgfsJ9aF41Y3tz21w=
=qp3c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hello,

On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 04:22:45PM +0100, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> one more question - maybe i lost this info because I might have not
> read all emails.
> is there a way to vote if somebody is not at fosdem?
> i think this will apply for many people.

You can find the election rules at:

http://www.pgug.eu/election.txt

But there's a different thread for that topic.

To answer your question: no, you can't vote if you are not at FOSDEM.
We have a chicken-egg problem here: nobody knows, where you are from or
if the person behind your email address really exists.
In addition only members of the user group should be able to vote.

So we created a membership form which you can sign at fosdem, show your
photo-id and then you are allowed to vote. Future elections will happen
in a more formal way, maybe with vote by email or an electronic voting
system.

Bye

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group

On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 08:04 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> It is really very simple

It is. We're trying to move things forward for Postgres in Europe.

--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:19:21 +0000
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 08:04 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > It is really very simple
>
> It is. We're trying to move things forward for Postgres in Europe.
>

So am I.

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHmi1XATb/zqfZUUQRArJcAJsEuQnbr4KIFosmCx0X/+Od6STJegCgmW77
sg6qDUrOV/7oaTBwec/44zE=
=D0ko
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

hi pg-eu !

Let's do another recap and see if we have some kind of a consensus here.

I'll try to sum the last 50 messages and propose the best solutions to the 5
remaining issues

But before that let me give some practical information. The process of writing
statutes started 3 months ago. If you haven't read the draft, please take
some time to do it before asking questions :

http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes

There have been lots of discussions about this draft, that i've tried to sum
up on that page :

http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes_discuss

The statutes will be signed by the members of Boards of Directors, that we
will elect at FOSDEM (Bruxels, Feb 24). Only the french version of the
statutes is legally bounding, so he have to translate the statutes in french
before FOSDEM. I need at least 5 days for the translation+proof-reading,
which means we must agree on a definitive version before Feb 16.

Yes we only have 12 days to find a consensus :-)

Note that if we fail the constitution of PostgreSQL Europe won't be stopped,
but FOSDEM is really a great deadline and if we can't reach an agreement
before it , we might lose a lot of time and remain stuck into this creation
process for a long time.

Please also note, that the elections rules ( who can vote, etc. ) are not
specified by the statutes. These rules are discussed in another thread.

ok here's the 5 remaining issues :

> 1- Membership fee ?
> a : Keep the statutes as they are
> b : No membership fee for people
> c : Optional membership fee for people

Consensus seems to be ;

"Don't write any reference to a membership fee in the statutes".
People can get into the association simply by filling and sending an
membership request . The Board of Directors has to approve the membership
resquest for it to be valid.

Solution : 1b

>
> 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
>

From my point of view we can find a agreement with this rule :

When a local group wants to join the European group, it provides the
list of its members who are ok to be also member of the pg-eu association.
These persons become "automatically'" members of PostgreSQL

The actual allows this, no need to change them.

solution : 2a

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

That one is tough !

It seems to me that we can find an agreement by lowering the quorum to 25%.
When the quorum is not reached, we organize a second quorum-free GA within 30
days where people can vote by electronic means ( e-mail, IRC ).

In other word, if the GA is composed of less than 1/4 of the members,
decisions must be submitted to the members by electronic voting during the
following month.

solution : 3b

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

Most people seems to say : "Let's keep things simple"
The statutes already provides features against evil members.

solution : 4a

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

Companies are sponsors.
Only individuals can be members

solution ; 5b

I'm conscious that these solutions are not perfect and that some of you might
object on some details.

However if you're ok with these propositions ,can you reply "+1" to this
message. If you're not feel free to respond with detailled
counter-propositions and if possible the sentences and paragraphs that you
want to add or remove from the statutes.

Regards

--
damien clochard
http://dalibo.org | http://dalibo.com

On Feb 5, 2008 12:10 AM, damien clochard <damien(at)dalibo(dot)info> wrote:
> However if you're ok with these propositions ,can you reply "+1" to this
> message. If you're not feel free to respond with detailled
> counter-propositions and if possible the sentences and paragraphs that you
> want to add or remove from the statutes.

+1 from me. Nicely summarised - thanks!

Regards, Dave

On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:10:42AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> hi pg-eu !
>
> Let's do another recap and see if we have some kind of a consensus here.

First of all, thanks for doing this work!

> I'm conscious that these solutions are not perfect and that some of you might
> object on some details.
>
> However if you're ok with these propositions ,can you reply "+1" to this
> message. If you're not feel free to respond with detailled
> counter-propositions and if possible the sentences and paragraphs that you
> want to add or remove from the statutes.

+1

My only question: does the quorum rules in any way affect the initial
meeting at FOSDEM, and if so, how?

//Magnus

On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:10:42AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
>
> However if you're ok with these propositions ,can you reply "+1" to this
> message. If you're not feel free to respond with detailled
> counter-propositions and if possible the sentences and paragraphs that you
> want to add or remove from the statutes.

+1

Thanks for the work and reading all the mails, Damien!

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group

damien clochard wrote:
> hi pg-eu !
>
> Let's do another recap and see if we have some kind of a consensus here.
>
> I'll try to sum the last 50 messages and propose the best solutions to the 5
> remaining issues

Great job, thanks!

--- 8< ---

> However if you're ok with these propositions ,can you reply "+1" to this

+1

/roppert

> message. If you're not feel free to respond with detailled
> counter-propositions and if possible the sentences and paragraphs that you
> want to add or remove from the statutes.
>
> Regards
>
>

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:10:42AM +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> ok here's the 5 remaining issues :
>
>
> > 1- Membership fee ?
> > a : Keep the statutes as they are
> > b : No membership fee for people
> > c : Optional membership fee for people
>
> Consensus seems to be ;
>
> "Don't write any reference to a membership fee in the statutes".
> People can get into the association simply by filling and sending an
> membership request . The Board of Directors has to approve the membership
> resquest for it to be valid.
>
> Solution : 1b
>
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> >From my point of view we can find a agreement with this rule :
>
> When a local group wants to join the European group, it provides the
> list of its members who are ok to be also member of the pg-eu association.
> These persons become "automatically'" members of PostgreSQL
>
> The actual allows this, no need to change them.
>
> solution : 2a
>
> > 3- Quorum ?
> > a : Keep the statutes as they are
> > b : Lower the quorum
> > c : Drop the quorum
> >
>
> That one is tough !
>
> It seems to me that we can find an agreement by lowering the quorum to 25%.
> When the quorum is not reached, we organize a second quorum-free GA within 30
> days where people can vote by electronic means ( e-mail, IRC ).
>
> In other word, if the GA is composed of less than 1/4 of the members,
> decisions must be submitted to the members by electronic voting during the
> following month.
>
> solution : 3b
>
> > 4- Takeover protection ?
> > a : Keep statutes as they are
> > b : Add more criterium for the member to satisfy
> >
>
> Most people seems to say : "Let's keep things simple"
> The statutes already provides features against evil members.
>
> solution : 4a
>
> > 5- Companies : sponsors or members ?
> > a : Keep the statutes as they are
> > b : Companies are sponsors
> >
>
> Companies are sponsors.
> Only individuals can be members
>
>
> solution ; 5b
>
>
> I'm conscious that these solutions are not perfect and that some of you might
> object on some details.
>
> However if you're ok with these propositions ,can you reply "+1" to this
> message. If you're not feel free to respond with detailled
> counter-propositions and if possible the sentences and paragraphs that you
> want to add or remove from the statutes.

+1

Bit late, but well, life's busy...

I think i've sufficiently vented my opinions already, and am willing to
accept the concensus reached.

Thanks for doing all this work!

Best,

Koen

--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/

Ok the final version is here.

http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes

Please take some time to read it and send any modification or typo before
wednesday 20th. I'll do the french translation this week.

To answer to Magnus question : The quorum rules don't have any effect on the
election at FOSDEM. The statutes will be valid *after* this first election.

If you are candidate to the elections, please bring up a copy of your national
ID Card or passport at FOSDEM

--
damien clochard
http://dalibo.org | http://dalibo.com

I see we have "Article 12 - Use of the logo of the Association", but no
article about membership document. I think it could be sort of
business card with Logo.

I have my PostgreSQL Global Development Group business card with
elephant and in my experience it makes an impression :)

Oleg

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, damien clochard wrote:

>
> Ok the final version is here.
>
> http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes
>
> Please take some time to read it and send any modification or typo before
> wednesday 20th. I'll do the french translation this week.
>
> To answer to Magnus question : The quorum rules don't have any effect on the
> election at FOSDEM. The statutes will be valid *after* this first election.
>
> If you are candidate to the elections, please bring up a copy of your national
> ID Card or passport at FOSDEM
>
>
>

Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83

On Sunday 17 February 2008 19:52:45 Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> I see we have "Article 12 - Use of the logo of the Association", but no
> article about membership document. I think it could be sort of
> business card with Logo.
>
> I have my PostgreSQL Global Development Group business card with
> elephant and in my experience it makes an impression :)
>
> Oleg
>

Well PostgreSQL Europe doesn't have it's own logo yet, we might think about
it once the election and the official registration are done.

Member cards may be a good idea too, as far as i know Andreas is already
working on something like that.

--
damien clochard
http://dalibo.org | http://dalibo.com

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, damien clochard wrote:

> On Sunday 17 February 2008 19:52:45 Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>> I see we have "Article 12 - Use of the logo of the Association", but no
>> article about membership document. I think it could be sort of
>> business card with Logo.
>>
>> I have my PostgreSQL Global Development Group business card with
>> elephant and in my experience it makes an impression :)
>>
>> Oleg
>>
>
> Well PostgreSQL Europe doesn't have it's own logo yet, we might think about
> it once the election and the official registration are done.
>
> Member cards may be a good idea too, as far as i know Andreas is already
> working on something like that.

Here is my card: http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/files/Bartunov.svg

Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83

On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 19:16 +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> Ok the final version is here.
>
> http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes
>
> Please take some time to read it and send any modification or typo before
> wednesday 20th. I'll do the french translation this week.

Is the document's definitive text to be in English or in French?

There are quite a lot of alterations that need to be made to the
English. Some are minor points of grammar or spelling; but in some
places the English doesn't make sense:

Article 1:

"The association takes the following denomination" -> "The association
shall be called" (denomination signifies the value of a currency note or
a particular segment of the Christian church).

Article 3:

"registred" -> "registered" (x 2)

Article 5:

"resquest" -> "request"

Article 6:

Split the third reason into non-payment and some serious reason.

Should not exclusion for non-payment be automatic? Why should it need a
board decision?

I suggest:
"Membership is lost by
sending a letter of resignation to the President;
death;
failing to pay the annual subscription within 2 months of its becoming
due;
being excluded by decision of the Board of Directors for some serious
reason, after having been given an opportunity to offer explanations to
the Board."

Article 7:

"The greatest entity..." -> "The supreme body..." (not English idiom)

"The moral report" : this cannot be what you mean to say. In English,
"moral" is to do with matters of right and wrong. More likely you mean
something like a report on the activities of the association. The
English would be "Directors' report" or possibly "Activities report".

"...will be sent to members prior to the members before the General
Assembly" -> "...will be sent to members by email or otherwise at least
7 days before the meeting" (original is garbled; some advance notice
must be required, to give people time to think)

"...may propose a subject on the agenda" -> "...may place an item on the
agenda; an item for the agenda must be received by the President
[Secretary?] no later than 8 days before the meeting" (to allow 7 days
for notice to be sent to members.)

I suggest that only paid-up members should be allowed to vote at a
general meeting:

"Members may not vote in a meeting of the General Assembly unless they
have paid any subscription due for the year or have been excused payment
for that year by a resolution of the board."

The article refers to "represented" members, but does not state how
representatives are to be appointed or authorised.

Article 8:

"They are reeligible." -> "Retiring directors are eligible for
re-election." (not an English word)

"cooptation" -> "cooption" (x 2)

The article refers to "represented" members, but does not state how
representatives are to be appointed or authorised.

"It allows all acquisitions, disposals rental and contracts of all kinds
to intervene between the association and individuals or legal entities,
of public or private right." This is meaningless in English and I can't
guess what you meant. Please explain what it is supposed to mean (or
write it in French).

"revoked" -> "removed"

"revoked by right" -> "removed automatically" (not English idiom)

"absences to the Board of Directors meetings" -> "absences from meetings
of the Board of Directors"

"does not participate in the voting." -> "do not ..." (plural subject)

Article 9:

"Comittee" -> "Committee" (x 6)

"The Board of Directors elects among its members" -> "...elects from
among..."

"The outgoing Executive Comittee ensures his duties until" ->
"...continues to carry out its duties until" (not English)

"the voice of the President is dominating" -> "the President shall have
a casting vote" (or "the President shall decide the issue")

"In the event of someone leaving the Executive Committee for whatever
reason, the replacement of outgoing member will be made during the next
Board of Directors. The end of the mandate of replacing member is the
same as that of the member replaced." -> "In the event of a vacancy on
the Executive Committee, for whatever reason, the outgoing member shall
be replaced at the next meeting of the Board of Directors. The end of
the replacement's mandate shall be the same as that of the outgoing
member."

"The President shall manage the association, and call and presides" ->
"...manages..., calls and presides" or "...shall manage..., call and
preside" (confusion of tenses)

"The President has the ability to sign on any document committing the
association. It may grant" -> "Only the President has the power to sign
any document committing the association. He may grant" ("It" would
refer to the document)

"and financial accounting of" -> "and accounts of"

"THE PRESIDENT represents the association in all acts of civil life, and
is vested with powers to that effect. He concludes any agreement with
individuals or legal persons, provided THAT he has the authorization of
the Board of Directors. In this capacity, he signS contracts on behalf
of the association. The president is entitled to CONDUCT any DEALINGS
WITH any PUBLIC BODY, especially in tax matters, and to open any bank OR
POST OFFICE account. He acts IN LEGAL MATTERS on behalf of the
association, with the permission of the Executive Committee, either to
MAKE claimS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION or to defend IT." [capitalised
words represent amendments for good English]

"he is replaced by one of the Treasurer" -> "he is replaced by the
Treasurer, or failing him, one of the other members of the Executive
Committee" (it looks as if you missed something out)

"for keeping under his control the accounts of the association" -> "for
keeping the association's accounts under his own control"

"He collects revenues and it performs any payment" -> "...and he makes
payments"

Article 10:

"Members of the association, may not receive any compensation" ->
"...association shall not receive..." ("may" is ambiguous)

Article 11:

"are made from" -> "come from"

Article 12:

"provided that it respect the aims and ethics" -> "provided that they
respect the association's aims and ethics"

Article 13:

"Any act or service performed" -> "...to be performed"

"If the act or service on behalf of the association is paid, it can lead
to retribution, the association in this case being the sole beneficiary
authorized, in the person of its treasurer." I am not clear what this
means. "Retribution" means "punishment", which seems unlikely. Perhaps
you mean to say: "If an act or service on behalf of the association is
paid, any monies received must be paid to the Treasurer, who is the sole
person authorised to receive money for the association."

"or any person authorized" -> "or a person authorised"

"Only the General Assembly has the power add articles, amend or modify
these statutes, and then adopt them." Until the statutes have been
adopted, the General Assembly does not exist, so this sentence is really
redundant.

The whole article could read: "No modification of or addition to these
statutes shall be made except by a majority of not less than 2/3 of
members voting at a meeting of the General Assembly of the association."

Article 15:

This is titled "Governing Law", but Article 1 says that the association
is governed by French law. Is this article redundant? or does it even
conflict with article 1? If it relates to dealings with other persons
by contract, this is a matter that is usually defined by the contract.

Is it possible for the registered office of a French association to be
outside France?

--
Oliver Elphick olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
Paule, Brittany, France http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA
========================================
You're nearly out of time! http://www.lfix.co.uk/disappearance.html

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

On Sunday 17 February 2008 22:08:31 Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 19:16 +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> > Ok the final version is here.
> >
> > http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes
> >
> > Please take some time to read it and send any modification or typo before
> > wednesday 20th. I'll do the french translation this week.
>
> Is the document's definitive text to be in English or in French?
>

The two versions will remain, but only the french version will be legally
binding. Anyone that wants to translate the statutes in another language is
more than welcome !

> There are quite a lot of alterations that need to be made to the
> English. Some are minor points of grammar or spelling; but in some
> places the English doesn't make sense:
>

Thanks for your time and explanations !

By the way this document is a wiki page, do not fear to click on the
mighty "edit" button. ;-)

>
> Article 6:
>
> Split the third reason into non-payment and some serious reason.
>
> Should not exclusion for non-payment be automatic? Why should it need a
> board decision?
>

Actually this is my mistake, non-payment is no more a reason of exclusion as
it has been decide that no membership fee is required.

> The article refers to "represented" members, but does not state how
> representatives are to be appointed or authorised.
>

This is a detail imho. The statutes doesn't have to set in stone every single
mechanism of voting. The board of directors will edit the rules of each
elections. This is how we worked for the first election that will happen @
FOSDEM : the statutes define the "guidelines" of the elections while details
are specified in another thread ( check out :
http://www.pgug.eu/election.txt )

> "It allows all acquisitions, disposals rental and contracts of all kinds
> to intervene between the association and individuals or legal entities,
> of public or private right." This is meaningless in English and I can't
> guess what you meant. Please explain what it is supposed to mean (or
> write it in French).
>

i meant that the Board of Directors has to approve any contract signed between
the association and another entity ( person, company , whatever )

French version would be :

il autorise toutes acquisitions, aliénations ou locations immobilières ainsi
que les contrats de toute sorte à intervenir entre l’association et des
personnes physiques ou des personnes morales, de droit public ou de droit
privé.

I modified the statutes and tried to make this sentence more simple.

>
> "If the act or service on behalf of the association is paid, it can lead
> to retribution, the association in this case being the sole beneficiary
> authorized, in the person of its treasurer." I am not clear what this
> means. "Retribution" means "punishment", which seems unlikely. Perhaps
> you mean to say: "If an act or service on behalf of the association is
> paid, any monies received must be paid to the Treasurer, who is the sole
> person authorised to receive money for the association."
>

You understood correctly my bad english :-)
This idea is to explicitly avoid the possibility for a member to get paid for
PostgreSQL related services in the name of the association.

>
> Article 15:
>
> This is titled "Governing Law", but Article 1 says that the association
> is governed by French law. Is this article redundant? or does it even
> conflict with article 1? If it relates to dealings with other persons
> by contract, this is a matter that is usually defined by the contract.
>

You're right. My first intention was to write statutes so that we can move the
association in another country if needed. After further research it appears
that a french association *must* be located in France and cannot be placed
under another governing law.

Based on the fact that citizen of European Community are allowed to move
freely from a country to another, i thought it was the same for legal
entities such as this association. i was way too optimistic :)

If we want to move PostgreSQL Europe outside of France we'll have to write
new statutes.

I proposed to remove totally the article 15 as it is redundant. If any of you
has objection to this, let me know.

--
damien clochard
http://dalibo.org | http://dalibo.com

hi

This whole statutes thread is coming to en end !

Last night i translated the English draft into French. As i wrote the English
version and French is my mother tongue, i think the translation is really
accurate. However there might be some typos and mistakes.

Please if you speak both French and English, take a look a my translation and
notify any error :

English -> http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes
Français -> http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statuts

Thanks in advance.

I'm sorry that i didn't have time nor money for a certified translation. It
just appeared to me that is was more important to spend time and energy
discussing and trying to reach the best consensus, instead of having the
translation certified. However if some people have time to make that
certification happen, they are very welcome.

Thanks again to everyone involved in the writing of theses statutes.

Hope to see you @ FOSDEM :-)

On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 17:49 +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> hi
>
> This whole statutes thread is coming to en end !
>
> Last night i translated the English draft into French. As i wrote the English
> version and French is my mother tongue, i think the translation is really
> accurate. However there might be some typos and mistakes.
>
> Please if you speak both French and English, take a look a my translation and
> notify any error :
>
> English -> http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes
> Français -> http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statuts
>
> Thanks in advance.

I've edited the English to improve it some more and to make it agree
better with the French.

Article 14 does not agree in wording between French and English, though
the actual effect is the same. You adopted my proposed text for the
English but you seem not to have changed the French. I have left the
English alone for now.

I hope you all have a good time at FOSDEM. Sorry I can't be there.

--
Oliver Elphick olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
Paule, Brittany, France http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA
========================================
You're nearly out of time! http://www.lfix.co.uk/disappearance.html

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

On Thursday 21 February 2008 19:05:45 Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 17:49 +0100, damien clochard wrote:
> > hi
> >
> > This whole statutes thread is coming to en end !
> >
> > Last night i translated the English draft into French. As i wrote the
> > English version and French is my mother tongue, i think the translation
> > is really accurate. However there might be some typos and mistakes.
> >
> > Please if you speak both French and English, take a look a my translation
> > and notify any error :
> >
> > English -> http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statutes
> > Français -> http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/pgeu:statuts
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
>
> I've edited the English to improve it some more and to make it agree
> better with the French.
>

Thanks a lot for that !

> Article 14 does not agree in wording between French and English, though
> the actual effect is the same. You adopted my proposed text for the
> English but you seem not to have changed the French. I have left the
> English alone for now.
>

Yes that's my mistake.
I've changed the French version of article 14 to make it closer to your
English version.

--
damien clochard
http://dalibo.org | http://dalibo.com