Subject: Re: [email-masked]

From: "Magnus Hagander" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:31:45 +0200

> > Does the foundation exist at all? ;-)
> 
> No, we now have a fund at Software in the Public Interest.  
> This removes from us the burden of running an NPO, something 
> we just didn't have the resources to do.

Ok. That's what I thought.

> > I'd say @postgresql.org, just to disagree with your. Or rather, 
> > because it shuold be clearly shown that it's a part of the core 
> > project and not some addon - I assume this is for ppl who 
> want to ask 
> > question about whom to give all their money etc?
> 
> <grin> It's a little more complex than that.

I sohuld've known.

> What we need is a coordination area for the Fundraising 
> Group.  The FG will control the funds at Software in The 
> Public Interest, and their German affiliate, FFIV.  However, 
> there are PostgreSQL NPOs in France and Japan whose 
> relationship to the FG is not yet defined.
> 
> Oh, and before the clamor starts, there will be a membership 
> shuffle in the FG and new people will be invited to join to 
> make it more representative of PostgreSQL.org as a whole.  
> Right now, we're in the process of drafting a charter ... at 
> least, we were when the mailing list went down.
> 
> So, we currently need one list for the FG.  However, when we 
> speak of raising money for PostgreSQL in general, that needs 
> to encompass JPUG and PostgreSQL.Fr, and possibly other 
> organizations in the future.  So it'll probably be two lists, 
> one for the FG related to the SPI funds and one for the main 
> coordinating body for money issues which might consist of 
> representatives from each of the organizations.
> 
> Therefore ... I'm leaning towards the pgfoundry project for 
> the FG, at least until we get organized.

Seems reasonable for that - until it's organised. Once it starts
becoming an "official representative", I'm still all for making it look
"more official". But it might be good to have the orgnaisation and
charter flushed out first.

> Complicated enough for you?   It's so PostgreSQL!

Bah, PostgreSQL is simple compared to this ;-)

//Magnus