Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap

[Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>]

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