Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap

[Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>]

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