Subject: Databasing sponsors

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:11:50 -0700

Hello,

I am in the process of databasing the /sponsors page. These are my
initial thoughts:

sponsor table:

id - serial pk
stype - the type of sponsor
description - how they sponsor

sponsor_type:

stype: the type of sponsor (pk)

developer_to_sponsor:

developer_id, key to developers.id
sponsor_id, key to sponsors.id

Anybody see any problem with this?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- -- 
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ 
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

---

From: Oleg Bartunov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 23:22:53 +0400 (MSD)

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>

you forget about 'what they sponsored'.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFH9Q/ZATb/zqfZUUQRAqVwAJ4u2PUuBcYyfLh11yyfTrf0znD6KwCfUOWn
> DJKUFVKItqUyKU5Bb6SHs5Q=
> =hd7/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

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

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:38:49 -0700

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 23:22:53 +0400 (MSD)

> you forget about 'what they sponsored'.

That is sponsor.description. I almost called it sponsor.what but felt
that was a little weird.

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:15:45 -0700

Josh,

> description - how they sponsor
name - sponsor name
link - sponsor link
image - sponsor logo image location
location - sponsor location (of HQ, if appropriate)
source - source of sponsor information

> stype: the type of sponsor (pk)

I'd like to expand this system to cover doing the full sponsor breakdown we 
discussed and approved 1.5 years ago but never implemented.  So as long as 
I can stuff giving categories into "stype", I'm good with it.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:22:06 -0700

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:15:45 -0700

> > description - how they sponsor

Doh... I had that on my screen, don't know why I didn't paste.

> link - sponsor link

Sure.

> image - sponsor logo image location

Sure.

> location - sponsor location (of HQ, if appropriate)

If we are doing that, I want full info (address, contact etc.. not
exposed of course).

> source - source of sponsor information

What type of source are we talking about here?

> > stype: the type of sponsor (pk)

We need to add a sort column here, so we know which one shows first.

> I'd like to expand this system to cover doing the full sponsor
> breakdown we discussed and approved 1.5 years ago but never
> implemented.  So as long as I can stuff giving categories into

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It was discussed, it was never
approved and as you are fully aware I had reservations about it.
Further later in conversations we discussed a different scenario.
However, this is a technical discussion and we can get into those
details later.

> "stype", I'm good with it.
> 

Which we will be able to do.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:12:42 -0400

> However, this is a technical discussion and we can get into those

It's not clear to me that you haven't already opened this up by adding the 
stype field.  I don't see anything on the current sponsors page that 
indicates what type of sponsor people are, so you've made a subtle but 
substantive change to the system defining the schema as you did.  

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 04:10:22 -0700

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:12:42 -0400
Robert Treat <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It's not clear to me that you haven't already opened this up by
> adding the stype field.  I don't see anything on the current sponsors
> page that indicates what type of sponsor people are, so you've made a
> subtle but substantive change to the system defining the schema as
> you did.  
> 

Categorization is going to happen. The question is how, which is not a
question for this thread.

Joshua D. Drake

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 04:14:57 -0700

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 04:10:22 -0700

> question for this thread.

Or more to the point, I really don't want to clutter of a technical
discussion with something that belongs on advocacy (or somewhere else).
For the categorization we need a name and a sort order at a minimum. So
that is what I want to put in place for now.

When we hammer out "what" the categorization is going to be, we can
implement the actual changes.

Joshua D. Drake

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:33:51 -0400

> implement the actual changes.

But to implement the current setup, we don't need any of that (we can sort by 
name only), so we should probably leave out the categorization untill we 
actually know what that should look like.

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:27:01 -0700

Josh,

> However, this is a technical discussion and we can get into those

It was discussed on this list until there were no objections, and then 
discussed and approved in an SPI/JPUG/Fr meeting at the Anniversary.  We 
might want to change some specifics now that there are more groups 
involved, but I also think you should hesitate before restarting the whole 
discussion process, since getting up what we decided on 1.5 years ago has 
taken long enough.

In other words, if you start rearguing it, then it's likely sponsor listing 
will never go up.  And I don't think that satisfies *anyone*.  It's the 
web site design all over again.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:47:55 +0100

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Josh Berkus <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  discussed and approved in an SPI/JPUG/Fr meeting at the Anniversary.

What does it have to do with SPI, JPUG or Fr (as groups, not the
individuals in them)?

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:02:25 -0700

Dave,

> What does it have to do with SPI, JPUG or Fr (as groups, not the

Because at the time those were our only fundraising vehicles.  It was also 
an open session and several people not in any of those orgs attended.

Now, of course, we'd need to pull in PGUS, PGEU, and PostgreSQL.Br.  
However, I stand by the idea that the donor schema from then is still 
basically OK and we can put it up and then incrementally improve it.  If 
we try for the 100% perfect donor listings, then it'll just be the website 
redesign all over again.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:05:17 +0100

>  an open session and several people not in any of those orgs attended.

Don't suppose you recall what it clashed with do you? I don't remember
it at all.

>  Now, of course, we'd need to pull in PGUS, PGEU, and PostgreSQL.Br.

No, I don't think we do - we're only interested in sponsors of
postgresql.org (and possibly family, per our offlist conversation) on
www.postgresql.org. The regional groups have their own websites and
use funding for their own purposes, so I believe its up to them to
recognise their own sponsors.

---

From: damien clochard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:00:05 +0200

> recognise their own sponsors.

Exactly. At least this is what we are working on in the french-speaking users 
association. In a few days we will publish on postgresql.fr a web page with 
the listing of the sponsors ( although we rather use the terms "corporate 
members" ) along with the active contributors of the association.

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

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:50:39 -0700

Dave,

> recognise their own sponsors.

For financial sponsors, there's no way to give www.postgesql.org money. 
  You can only give it to a regional group or SPI.

That's why I was planning to offer consolidated listings of mid-to-upper 
-level donors on www.postgresql.org.

--Josh

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:26:18 +0100

Josh,

I meant the regionals. Obviously donations to postgresql.org go thru
spi - only they should be listed on www.postgresql.org

/D

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:50:59 -0600

Dave,

> spi - only they should be listed on www.postgresql.org

I don't think it's fair counting only SPI for www.postgresql.org.  
Americans who donate to SPI get tax deductions, but citizens of other 
countries do not.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:51:33 +0100

That's as maybe, but there's no other way for non USians to donate to
postgresql.org than thru Spi.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:57:58 -0700

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:51:33 +0100

> postgresql.org than thru Spi.

That would depend on what the definition is for donating to
postgresql.org.

Joshua D. Drake

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:05:38 -0600

All,

> That would depend on what the definition is for donating to

My personal opinion is that donations to *any* community-owned PostgreSQL 
formally constituted NGO (including JPUG, SPI, PGUS, PGEU, ITPUG, 
PostgreSQL.Fr and PostgreSQL.Br) should be counted.  

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco